Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Accusation of murder

This whole rant is a tissue of lies, but I believe that the accusation of murder, reference to a police cell and the call for a lifelong ban are all breaches of WP policy, requiring admin intervention, please. Note also the same users previous defamatory edits made using sock puppets. Andy Mabbett 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Lewisskinner needs some education and possible support dealing with a Wikistalker, not banning. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear confused; I'm Andy Mabbett, not "Lewisskinner". Andy Mabbett 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone appears confused. You linked to Lewisskinner's post and objected to it. --Masamage ♫ 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the accusation of murder here. --Haemo 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I took it, and I may be wrong, as 'killing' the participation of a wikieditor, not of outright removing the pulse of a living human. ThuranX 00:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

that's how it seemed tome also. DGG 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

From the cited diff. "He has already murdered another wikiuser". Andy Mabbett 11:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that as literally accusing anyone of murder, given that he specifically couched in the context of an analogy. --Haemo 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, let me identify myself as lewisskinner, using an IP here, and only here to defend myself (having been blocked, see beow). Of course, feel free to block this IP too after posting.

Secondly, why Pigsonthewing, did you not think to notify me of yet another AN/I complaint made against myself by yourself? (from the top of this page - "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting"). But congrats in finally getting what you wanted!

Thirdly, the accusations of sockpuppetry are a) false, as explained, and b) Irrelevant in this particular incident. But hey, I expect to get that thrown in my face everytime Pigsonthewing has a dispute with me!

Fourthly, to defend the comment, it was a direct quote, as cited on my talk page. Twice

Finally, why does Pigsonthewing seem so averse to coming on to my talk page and requesting retraction of my comments? I can think of only one occasion in which he's ever posted on my talk page, and that was in response to user:Adambro gallant but ultimately (and always destined to be) futile attempt at mediation at User_talk:Lewisskinner/Archive_May_2007#Regarding_User:Pigsonthewing. Why will you not sort these problems out in private Pigsonthewing? Why must you always go to admins? It only wastes their time, our time which we could be spending editing articles rather than screaming each other down and trading insults, and other user's time who have to come here having been dragged in by the insults. I'd have retracted/reworded the comment if you'd asked! 91.105.170.205 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for a user to evade a block in this manner? Andy Mabbett 10:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/91.105.170.205. That was the only edit, so I don't really think it was evasion, do you? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(info) I blocked Lewis for 48 hrs yesterday for this; the murder comment, in or out of context, was uncivil and inappropriate. If this is felt to be inappropriately harsh feel free to unblock (he's got an unblock request up now). I did not see it as an analogy; if Lewis meant it that way, he should communicate in a manner less prone to interpretation as accusations of physical violence. Neither threats nor acusations of that should ever be taken lightly. Georgewilliamherbert 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett is currently involved in another dispute on this page [2]. Is he involved in any other ones? -- Kleinzach 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply anything positive or negative about this editor, but maybe some history would be helpful.

I've seen him on this board a few times in the past, and gave my opinion once or twice: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive228#False accusation of stalking. While looking for this post I found another archive where a search revealed a couple of other threads: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive227. Anynobody 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There are more cases here, many of which are instances of Pigsonthewing misusing the AN/I board:

• • ArbCom
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive243#Misleading_and_provocative_edit
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive243#Infoboxes
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive238#vandal & dubious user name
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive237#Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers ownership issues
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive235#Abusive and aggressive post
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive234#Abuse-only anon user
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive234#Wizofdahood = vandal only —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.105.146.190 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Note that the above, unsigned lie was posted from the same IP-block as the above, block-evading edit. The only other edit by the user in this case was to vandalise an article I have previously edited. Andy Mabbett 22:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this intended to be another false accusation of sockpuppetry against me Pigsonthewing? If so, please stop, it's getting tiresome. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It can't be, since there have been no preceding false accusations; you were sock-puppeting. Andy Mabbett 09:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should check the explanation Pigsonthewing? I have since close my Wi-Fi. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 19:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I read both your "explanation" and the comments on it by the user who carried out the checkuser: "If that's the case, then, looking at the edit pattern, I find the confluence of interests and writing style remarkable and likely to break new ground in the study of coincidence. Or perhaps not" ([3]) and "On balance, my considered opinion as an experienced checkuser remains to suggest to Lewis "come off it" and to point out that Wikipedia is incredibly tolerant, but we're not actually stupid" ([4]). Andy Mabbett 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is the lie? How is the second part relevant? Where was the vandalism?

• • Also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Infobox Discussion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.105.146.190 (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2007.

Lewis, it is not credible for you to expect that an IP address in a block from which you have sockpuppeted extensively in the past to come here and edit like that and for us not to conclude that it's you. Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Threat of physical violence against Abu badali

I missed this when it happened, but it strikes me as rather serious. User:TechnoFaye threatened to physically assault User:Abu_badali with a baseball bat: [5]. I think this should be taken very seriously. —Chowbok ☠ 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. If someone thinks it is not enough please feel free to change the duration. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Indef would be entirely justified. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem with these situations is the underlying causes of vented frustration. In that spirit, perhaps an admin should look into Abu Badali's actions as well? I'm not addressing the offer to brain him, TF's words are violent and stupid, and he needs a good long cool off, but did the actions of abu badali incite him through continuing escalations? and if so, shouldn't that be addressed as well? ThuranX 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. Newyorkbrad 20:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That is why i stopped right there. Abu badali is already at the ArbCom for the moment. Whatever the case is, personal attacks especially threat of violence got no justification. An indef would have been too harsh as the climate surrounding the ArbCom case is hot and maybe that what added to TechnoFaye's behaviour which was unacceptable but i don't believe it merits an indef. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I may be the only person that's going to say this, but the comment was written... on May 2. Blocking him for 1 month on the 15th knowing that the Arbitration is undergoing and he's cited as a party doesn't strike me as making a lot of sense here. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 07:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Penwhale. I have no problem unblocking the account in order to give the owner the opportunity to participate at the ArbCom case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Conditionally unblocked

I've just unblocked TechnoFaye in order for her to be able to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. I made this clear to her at her talkpage and the unblock edit summary. I also sent an email informing her of this. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please exercise some restraint

Some information, take it as you will:

1. User:TechnoFaye is functionally autistic. She is ordinarily a very good contributor and a perfectly decent person in my eyes.

2. There is an open ArbCom case against User:Abu badali for widespread wikistalking, targeting the contributions of individual editors who have disagreed with him, and other misbehaviors.

3. User:Chowbok is hardly an innocent bystander, simply "bringing threats of violence to the attention of administrators." This editor has been accused of some of the same activities as Abu badali in the past and has an open [[6]], although note that he's nowhere near the level of Abu badali. TheQuandry 14:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input TheQuandry.

1. Well, the point is that making exceptions is not the best option. The policy is quite clear: Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored. I've had a look at her contribs before i executed the block and found out that she is a good contibutor. As usual, i perfom a block log check for double checking. Alors là i found out that she got involved in two cases of uncivility. So this was her 3rd one. 1 month block is not 48h but it is not 6 months as well. If it wasn't because she is a good contributor the block would have been much longer of course.
2. I am aware of the ArbCom case and she is free to participate on it as i explained above. It is not an exception but a necessary thing. Her input there is essential to the case. Abu Badali is having his case there but does that justify TechnoFaye's personal attack involving physical threat? She could have just expressed her distress in a civil way instead of doing what she's done.
3. As for if Chowbok is innoccent or not, i consider that an irrelevant issue as anyone could have reported the incident. Maybe he's involved in causing her distress but that should be dealt w/ at other venues or here in a dedicated "Chowbok causing TechnoFaye's distress" thread. Not to defend him but i just found out this: Chowbok, good work. Do not let this RfC dissuade you fron continuing. --Jimbo Wales 14:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging for non-free logos (formerly: Betacommand appears to be at it again

Betacommand appears to be at it again; this time their target (at the rate of several edits per minute) is all images which they perceive to be logos lacking a "fair use" rationale for use in the articles about the companies that the logo represents.

Now I'm not a Wikimedia Foundation copyright lawyer, but this seems to me to be a pretty safe "fair use", and I would expect that most companies would actually LIKE the use of their logos to decorate their articles. If this is true, then someone needs to rein in Betacommand. If not, then I think we need to either:

1. have someone draft a boilerplate fair use rational that covers this exact case, or
2. tell us exactly why this doesn't fall under fair use.

Atlant 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is that the images do not contain the fair-use rationale, then the burden is on the uploaders to fix the situation. The images are not embedded in articles, they are resources that are linked to as needed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you bring this here first as opposed to Betacommand's talk page? --Iamunknown 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I wanted advice and guidance before taking action. Atlant 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Iamunknown 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

that is the problem Boiler plate templates are not fair use rational. if people would actualy follow policy and take the time to write a one or two sentence explaining what the image is and why we need it the problem would be solved. as it is images need valid FU rational and templates dont do that. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand is acting quite correctly in this case. We require individual rationales for all fair use images, not a boilerplate one. Its not a matter of whether the companies would like us to use their images, its a matter of Wikipedia's policy on unfree content. We only allow copyright content in a very narrow range of circumstances. In particular, images must be free not only for Wikipedia to use but also for anyone else to use for any purpose. If this is not that case, a valid individual fair use rationale must be provided. Images are unlikely to be fair use if merely being used to decorate an article. Betacommand has approval to tag all images that do not contain a fair use rationale, either by himself or using his Bot account. If they are not added before 7 days after the uploader has been notified by the Bot, they will be deleted. WJBscribe 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe Betacommand is doing the necessary this time. -- FayssalF 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. This is needed and necessary work. -- ChrisO 18:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) While the edit rate is a little high (4-5 edits/min) but not quite bot speeds, FU images need a fair use rationale and a source. He isn't quite saying they aren't fair use, just it isn't explained how they are fair use to fully meet Wikipedia fair use criteria. Commenting them out in the artices can help as well to encourage readers to add the info after thinking: "Where did the image go? I better do what th tag says." As opposed to just seeing a redlink for an image after a few days "Where did the image go? I better upload it again." Mr.Z-man 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The first step in dispute resolution is to....contact the user involved. Swatjester 18:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• One problem is that many images were uploaded at a time before it was made clear by Jimbo and/or Wikipedia policy that a justification beyond the template was needed. Rather than tagging at bot-like speeds, it would be better if someone could go through individually to check fair use images. If there is no justification but a good one could be made, then write it. If the image violates fair use policy, nominate it for deletion. Crotalus horridus 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  Bots are for large scale operations like this. Atlant wants someone to either draft a boilerplate (not a good idea, rationales should be written on a case by case basis) or "tell us exactly why this doesn't fall under fair use." The latter is obvious: if nobody has written a rationale for using a non-free picture, then fair use cannot be justified. We have had these images on-site for years now in such cases, and nobody has bothered to justify their use. Time to get rid of them. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Bots are impersonal and rarely even describe the problem adequately. I've had at least one bot that never really gave me specific pointers in a peer review, just a general dump list of what needed to be done period. And in that list, I actually fulfilled 75% of the list. Even if you added a human element, we'd still have problems. --293.xx.xxx.xx 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• I've always wondered why people, instead of tagging en-masse and causing problems, don't simply create the fair use rationale. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is certainly something unclear here, not so much about the policy but about what people think the consensus about its interpretation is. Do we believe that the practice of routinely having a logo image on each company etc. article is justifiable? In that case, a single type of valid fair use rationale could be devised that would apply to all these images in pretty much the same way (and the demand of having it written out individually in each case would be not much more than an enforced symbolic bowing down to policy but of little practical value, and we could really just as well have that standard rationale templated.) Or do people think that logos should be used on company articles only in special cases, for instance where the design of the logo was of particular encyclopedic interest? In that case individual rationales would be crucial but, first and foremost, 98% of all existing logos would have to be deleted. This is a real question. What, in people's opinion, would be a valid fair use rationale for a company logo? I honestly don't know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Creating a fair use rationale takes time and thought, tagging random logos with a no rationale tag cuts out the latter requisite. The greater concern is to make sure that logo usage complies with Wikipedia:Logos. In my experience, simply deleting an image is unlikely to deter anyone from uploading a poorly sourced duplicate. So why not create a blanket rationale for the majority of cases? Asking individual contributors to cobble together a rationale that complies with policy as well as copyright law ignores the fact that the majority of users are not too well familiar with either. If we assume a janitorial role with image uploads, then lets address our own concerns. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Per Anetode. If WP:LOGO is appropriate then I don't understand the problem against a boilerplate FU rationale specifically for those logos (I thought there used to be a pulldown choice for uploading logos, which was implied FU, before they rearranged all that stuff). If we want to be more hardass about refusing FU images (an idea that I sympathize with) then the problem is WP:LOGO, which would need to be redone with the result of getting rid of almost all of the logos in the encyclopedia. I don't see the need for a handcrafted FU rationale message for each logo given that the actual usage is about the same in almost all cases. This particular bot operation looks ill-advised. I'd add that backlogs of stuff like this get large precisely because of the thought required to handle them correctly. Stuff that can be crunched through mindlessly usually gets taken care of quickly, either by hand or with software. So bots are usually the wrong way to deal with a backlog unless there's consensus to abandon hope of dealing with the backlog properly. 75.62.6.237 07:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

um there was no bots involved. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 07:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Then that's even worse. You could have left messages on linking articles' talk pages very easily, asking that the relevant images be tagged in accordance with the latest policy whim, and not cluttering main article namespace history. Instead, you simply commented each image out of each article, which is disruptive and at the very least vigilante justice, if not one step short of outright vandalism. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, that's amazing. I counted up to 7 edits a minute for hours on end. I wish I could do a neat trick like that without a bot. Nardman1 06:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not inappropriate to use something like AWB, or just old-fashioned tabbed browsing, to speed up the laborious process of mowing through fair-use images. It's a simple thing: if a page has no rationale and needs it, tag it with the appropriate tag and notify the uploader. It cannot be our job to write a rationale, which would require us to examine the image's use in every article in search of the critical commentary required by Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. That job has to fall to the uploader. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it can be your job. It's not like only one person can come up with a fair use rationale. To not do due dilligence - check the image to see if it's appropriate, and then fill in the gaps if it is - is poor editing, and using an automated tool to go through the images - thus assuring there's no actual human review - is insulting to editors working on these articles and images. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

VT hawkeye before calling someone a vandal why not read the Policy I was enforcing. leaving notes on talkpages doesnt get the job done. Commenting out the image and notifing the up-loader get a lot better feedback and results. as for Nardman1's issues its not a bot but a tool like AWB that I have written for FU image review. if anyone would like the code Ill give it to them as soon as I debug my most recent code change. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 13:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policy, thanks. I'm disagreeing with your method of enforcement. Common courtesy (not to mention common sense) appears to be rapidly disappearing from WP, and this didn't help. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

maybe if uploaders did what they were supposed to do, per policy and copyright law this wouldnt need done. but because users are lazy/dont know policy it needs done. this is the best method of getting results. if you think just placeing a template or notice does it your sadly mistaken we have articles that havent had sources tagged since 2005. since this is a legal issue i thought a more direct action is needed. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if you actually reviewed the images and tried to fix the problem instead of tagging 7 images a minute following numerous concerns about similar edits, this wouldn't be an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

hay jeff before making comments why not double check your facts. I dont tag 7 Images a minute, most of the edits are removing them from the mainspace and notifying the uploader. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

hay beta i did double check. If you're simply removing/tagging/notifying at a high rate without any real consideration, you're not really doing people a service. We allow fair use here, so if there's a fair use image being used that lacks a rationale, see if you can create one before tagging and removing. That's hard to do when you're making near-bot-speed edits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am, for someone not involved with either the image and related pages it would take 20-30 minutes to figure out where and why its needed. on the other hand someone who is familiar with the issue can do it in 2 minutes. also having only one person doing this would take years to review, on the flip side we remind users that FU images need rationale's and then they take care of that for all of the images they've uploaded. now jeff tell me what makes more sense one user checking and adding FU rationale to 360,000 images or having the community do it? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What makes more sense? Getting a bunch of people together to actually review the images as opposed to tagging them willy-nilly, undoubtedly. We are here to improve the content, after all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have to agree with betacommand here. Simply tagging the images, and hoping that someday, it will eventually get fixed per m:Eventualism is inappropriate in this case. This is a legal issue; we need fair use justifications, not just tagging it as being copyrighted. Leaving ourselves exposed to this sort of problem can potentially have serious impact on the project. Betacommand's actions are putting teeth into it. We might not like the teeth (even I don't like seeing some fair use images removed for lacking rationale) but it does have the effect of encouraging people to do it right in the first place. --Durin 17:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• First, it's extreme copyright paranoia, not a legal issue, and has no legitimate long-term, short-term, or any term impact on the project, let's stop fooling ourselves here. Secondly, no one's saying "simply tag the images," I'm saying actually review the images and attempt to fix the problem rather than throwing our hands up and insulting editors along the way. Make an effort, y'know? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Betacommand just ripping through pages is not much short of vandalism. It is no wonder that hard working page/subject editors are giving up posting in droves when someone is ripping through their work. If you are that concerned about fair use rationales for something which are obviously sporting logos, then why no add the rationales yourself rather than wrecking the pages. How to wreck an online community in one easy lesson. If people get genuine pleasure in their self imposed task of correcting other people's image 'errors' at a rather alarming rate(each to their own), then why not be constructive and source the rationales. I for one know my subject, but not the in depth workings of Wikipedia and am not remotely interested. Instead of wiping images, why not form, for example, a sports logo rationale those of us who write about our chosen sport. A sports logo is a sports logo. Hammer1980 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• If doing this work is vandalism, then I suggest you have WP:CSD#Images.2Fmedia criteria 6 removed from that page as a blatant case of vandalism. --Durin 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That may as well be in a foreign language to me mate. Hence the reason instead of ripping pages to shreds, how about putting in these rationales instead. A sports logo on a page is not likely to be targeted for copyright violation on Wikipedia when just being on this project increases awareness of the clubs/organizations concerned. It 'is' paranoia. Hammer1980 17:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• de-indent You consider it extreme paranoia. Myself and others do not. There are droves of lawyers whose sole purpose in professional life is to go after people who violate copyright of their clients. I'm not terribly interested in running afoul of these people. We've tried for *years* to get people to appropriately tag their images without effect. If such an effort actually yielded results, hey I'd be all for it. That's one of the joys of Wikipedia; group effort. But, the group effort has categorically failed in this instance. We're long past the time when we should sit around and wish for it to happen with our hopes dashed. This is a legal situation even if you don't want to feel it's a potentially dangerous one. The right thing to do is to make this situation go away. Since group effort isn't working, deleting is a way of fixing it that will actually work. If you are offended by this, then by all means *please* form a group of people to go after these images that are tagged and fix them. But, I'll virtually guarantee you nobody will want to do the work. That's why this tack needs to be taken. --Durin 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, it merely postpones the issue and pisses people off, not to mention actively harms the quality of the project and the product we're providing. If our paranoia is so great that we somehow think that a possible (not even probable) DMCA request is going to be leapfrogged for a lawsuit on a site that's been high-profile for over a year, I'm not sure what to say. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, I was being tongue in cheek. I've learned my lesson on civility from my recent failed rfa so I was just trying to use a little humor. You might want to fix your script a little, it's leaving comments in image page code indicating that you are BetacommandBot (when it lists the pages the image has been removed from). Nardman1 16:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If Jeff is so all-fired desperate to keep these images, why doesn't he round up a bunch of people to perform the review which he seems to think would be so simple and quick? Put your time and effort where your mouth is, Jeff. —Phil | Talk 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I do it where I see it, quite honestly, which isn't entirely often because I don't generally work with images. I also know that our extreme paranoia on copyright isn't nearly as urgent as about a hundred other things. More to the point - if there are people who actually see image patrolling as a valid use of their time, there's an effective way to do it that improves the project, and a lackadaisical approach that only stirs up more ill will for no good reason. If we can promote the former, we're better off. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was really taken aback by the thoughtless way Betacommand stuck two boilerplate messages on my talk page yesterday, and then ignored me when I left a response on his own talk page. He should learn some manners. I also agree with Jeff that Betacommand would be better employed providing fair use rationale. RupertMillard (Talk) 18:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a bit puzzled with this debate, and I'll repeat my question from above which nobody has answered: What, in people's opinion, would be a valid fair use rationale for a company logo? If people think a valid rationale could be found for the great bulk of these routine logo-in-infobox usages, that's one thing; if people think it couldn't, then we shouldn't be talking about uploaders writing rationales or not, we should be talking about preventing uploaders from writing wrong rationales. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a template that just needs filling in on my talkpage for a good example of a simple FU rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty simple:

1. No free or public domain versionis available.
2. The image is of lower resolution than the original logo (any copies made from it will be of inferior quality).
3. The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute their product or image in any way.
4. The image has future historical significance, and is a more appropriate choice than any other image available.
5. The logo is only being used for informational purposes.

That covers 99% of any logos we have. Furthermore, most other sites on the internet aren't fair use retarded, so many popular logos could use a variation of "This image is used on various websites, so its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is." If, instead of tagging, bot users would simply replace the text with this rationale for most logos, we'd probably be in better shape, but they still need to be reviewed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice sought: User:Ron liebman socks and Baseball articles

We have a moderately prolific sockpuppet family Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ron liebman running which is making moderate rate (10s/day) edits throughout primarily baseball related articles, making changes to statistics and various other details which are believed to be falsified information. It appears that the vandal is impersonating people off a list of members of the SABR baseball statistics society based on the accountnames, but is also using IP addresses.

Query 1 to the assembled peanut gallery: Is it worth semi-protecting the articles which Ron's socks are repeatedly hitting?

Query 2 to the peanut gallery: A large fraction of the edits appear to be coming from the New York City public library system. Would this volume of problem justify an IP range block on those IP addresses (for a few days to discourage?), or is that unreasonable overkill?

We are able to continue spotting and manually whacking the sockpuppet moles as they arise (1 to a few per day), however this is time consuming and has been going on for a week now.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 19:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection is probably the way to go. The problem with range-blocking the NYC public libraries is that presumably a huge number of people use the computers there. For that reason, semi-protection of the involved pages is probably the best way to limit the damage without freezing out too many contributors. Just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Georgewilliamherbert 02:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:AlistairMcMillan Incivility

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No administrative intervention warranted. Suggest pursuing dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

---

User:AlistairMcMillan has been getting very emotional at the Apple inc article, and done, what I feel to be incivil treatment.

The use first stated here that I am "yet another person who doesn't really have anything useful to contribute to Wikipedia" then went on to swear at me about reading:

User:AlistairMcMillan 13:46, 15 May 2007 diff here "My edits also come from actually reading the ***** sources."

I am heavaly offended by not only the use of this word but its context when User:AlistairMcMillan refered to my worth. there are so many words that could have been used, but the one used is also threatning in nature. combined with this editors use of my first name in the comments to follow the one about my worth:Here[7] and Here[8] As my first name is not listed anywhere in my talk page or my user page, I question where they got this info. If he is following outside wiki websites to locate me... Is this not stalking?--Zeeboid 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To anyone reading this, please note Zeeboid's first edits to Wikipedia were an attempt to write an article about himself. The article was deleted. The AFD still exists if anyone is interested. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThePete AlistairMcMillan 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alistair, I'm failing to see how it's relevant? He created an article on himself, and!? Matthew 20:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Its relevant because Z is complaining that AM knows his name; Am is pointing out how William M. Connolley 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This complaint is just trolling/pointless/hopeless/whatever. Z's "heavily offended" cannot possibly be taken seriously, compare his own behaviour [9] William M. Connolley 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where Zeeboid's name is used, and bloody is just a British way of swearing. Phony Saint 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I believe Alistair is only using the editors first name to get to Mr. Zee. I've seen that Alistair is generally an uncivil person, so I can understand that this user is slightly miffed. Perhaps Alistair should apologise and they should both move on. Matthew 20:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"generally uncivil"? Because three months ago I pointed other editors to our policy that says articles about fiction shouldn't just be plot summaries? On an article that three months later is just a great big long plot summary? AlistairMcMillan 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the use of "Paul Roberts", that's the person who wrote one of the source articles here. I see no indication of using Zeeboid's name, unless he happens to be the author of that article. Phony Saint 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In edit comments I said "Reply to Pete". I dislike using made up names. That's why I have my full name everywhere. AlistairMcMillan 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. It's not helpful to others in the debate to refer to someone by a non-obvious name, but he did reveal his name publicly. Phony Saint 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Read "emotional" as "extremely frustrated". Pete kept citing two sources to prove the statement "multiples sources criticized". I kept telling him the two sources were pointing at the same article on two different websites and removing one leaving the original. He kept restoring the duplicate. AlistairMcMillan 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So then, My actions justify an administrator using a violent swear and upon the first alteration to what you had done (an undiscussed major overhaul of an article section), saying I am "yet another person who doesn't really have anything useful to contribute to Wikipedia" and the use of my first name, which you had to hunt for to find? I reverted your changes, because upon the first change you used insulting personal reasons instead of policy or fact.[10] Your emotional state started before I made any reverts to your changes.

I am not the one that resorted to swearing and claiming an editor's worth to be zero. that was way beyond the line of Civil. we can go back and forth on the use of my name, which if I used reciently, I can understand, but you had to hunt to find it from Oct 16 2006.--Zeeboid 13:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I said you had an obvious chip on your shoulder about Apple. You obviously do. You even created a userbox category just to tell everyone that. You want a criticism section in the Apple article, simply because you don't like Apple. You've spent three months arguing with other editors over it. Even gotten mediators involved even though other editors are bending over backward to work with you. You constantly object to the content you adding being editing, even after other editors take the time to explain that they are doing so because the content you keep adding is breaking Wikipedia policy. Even now, how many times did I have to tell you the InfoWorld and PC World articles were exactly the same article before you actually listened? AlistairMcMillan 16:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Do my actions justify your offsive and violent use of language and your commenting about me bing "yet another person who doesn't really have anything useful to contribute to Wikipedia"? Did my edits force you to swear and to comment on me not having anything useful to contribute? No they did not, and as an administrator, you of all people should know better then to do what you did. Your actions even now, trying to change the topic to justify what you have done are not very "assume good faith"--Zeeboid 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith about what? You don't like Apple, so you edit articles accordingly. You don't believe in global warming, so you edit related articles to conform to your position. Ninety something percent of your edits relate to these two positions. In the three months you've been actively editing, you managed to pick fights with nearly every editor you've come across. And in the last month you've been blocked twice. Our "assume good faith" policy clearly says it "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary". AlistairMcMillan 19:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out to me where I said I don't like apple? I didn't, and we can talk all day about what you think I like or what you think I am all about, but that does not change the offensive language and the talking down to me you have been doing. Your off the cuff agression over the apple article and your vulgar and violent choice of words is what this is about. I ask again, Alistair: Do my actions justify your offensive and violent use of language? Do my actions force you to belittle me? Do my actions make you log into your computer and type the incivil things you have recently? I can't believe you are trying to turn this around to some type of reason to spread your hate. If I would have known trying to add a critism section to a company website, inline with microsoft or Nestle or Dell, would have forced you to speak in vulgar swears, I would have edited that in the first place. And as an administrator, you Alistair, should be setting an example for others.--Zeeboid 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to take great offense to my use single of the word "bloody" to express my frustration, go ahead. That isn't going to let you use two links to the same article on two different websites to claim "multiple sources". That's my final word on the matter. If you want to prove me wrong but making some constructive contribution to Wikipedia please by all means go ahead and prove me wrong. AlistairMcMillan 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest archiving this thread. There is no incivility here that rises to the level of requiring urgent administrative action. For the record, "bloody" in this context is not horribly offensive. Saying you have "nothing to contribute" in the context of a heated discussion is uncivil; the best approach is to point it out to the user in question, refocus the discussion on content issues, and move on. AN/I is intended for things that require urgent intervention; I'm not excusing incivility, but no admin is going to take action on the basis of one instance of mild-to-moderate inciviility in the setting of a heated discussion. This is more of a case for dispute resolution, if that. MastCell ^Talk 19:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree if Alistair had not started his conversation on the apple article or the apple talk page in such a heated way. The article talk had not been heated for some time until this administrator decided to use profanity and his insult as to my value. between this and using my first name (after hunting for it) to get to me, I can not believe that an administrator would be alloud to be so offensive to an editor. I also don't understand how his vulgarity can set a good example of how to help in the growth of Wikipedia. Others (Matthew above) have seen this user as uncivil, and I just wish I didn't have to fear AlistairMcMillan for his sudden burst of anger in this case. As someone who has been editing apple articles since July 2004 I hope other editors who edit apple related content are not treated in such an offensive manor when AlistairMcMillan does not agree. If he was sorry, I would accept that, but Alistair is only trying to turn this around away from him. Please Alistair, can't we settle this and get back to improving Wiki?--Zeeboid 20:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the forum to "settle things"; that would be dispute resolution. The first step is to disengage, which I'd suggest here. It sounds like you both want to put this behind you and get back to editing; why not do that? If that fails, consider the more advanced steps listed in dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Raul654 issues

Hello there. I am coming here reluctantly, as I certainly would not like to have to reprimand a user of such stature, but there have been many recent problems with this user that I have noticed. Raul654 has recently been discussion with other users here the problems he has with the Today's featured article (TFA) requests process. I have certain problems with what he is suggesting (and certainly think that it is not within reason) but that is not why I am coming here.

We have been having good quality discussion recently about how the process is not working and how it should be fixed. Raul asserts that the idea of requesting dates is not good because he is getting too many complaints from people who do not get what they request for a TFA. Fine, whatever. But my problem is that the discussion on his part has not been civil and he constantly bashes any ideas or proposals of him stepping down as the sole TFA selector (which other users think would be a good start to fixing the problem). But this still is not the reason I am here.

I'm not sure when, but very recently, Raul deleted two templates which go on talk pages of TFA requested articles: {{Main Page request}}[11]; {{Mainpage date requested}}[12]. Now, he gave no notice of deleting these, no edit summaries as to why he did so, and had removed the template from every page it was on without discussion. Now, he certainly knew what was going on at TFA requests and certainly there would be some disagreement with the deletion of these templates, so I come here to report that Raul has exceeded his duties and thinks that his position places him higher than everyone else in the community. I urge this entire situation to be looked into further, and, again, it was not my wish to come here and complain, but I felt it was my duty because of a wrong doing to everyone here. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jared has taken it upon himself to cause as much trouble for me as possible. (And has publicly said so: "I'll have to figure out the solution to the obvious problem of having only one person as FA coordinator myself."). The templates were discussed here, where everyone who commented on the matter expressed great dislike for them. Furthermore, as anyone who looks at the templates can see, they serve (literally) no useful value except to direct people to the requests page to vote for their article (which is prohibited by the directions on that page). Jared above claimed I gave no notice of deletion - this too is false. Basically, this is Jared's attempt to stir up trouble for me. Raul654 22:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, actually Raul, I must be missing something, but why do we even have a featured article director? I'm sure there is some reason for it, but I've just never seen it. Thanks ahead of time :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because when we switched from an all-text main page to the 4-pane view, some form of decision making was needed to allocate limited main page FA space. After 6 months of me doing it all by myself, a troll tried a breaching experiment and challenged my informal authority. A poll was taken, and (by near unanimous margins) I was given the title of featured article director. I also set up the FA criteria, FAC and FAR pages, set their policies, 'etc. In short - I more or less set up the whole show and since then, I give order to the process. Raul654 22:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting how my next statement in that first diff there (supposed to be bashing me) was "If you would still like to help work out a solution, feel free to contact me." Seriously, I do not want to cause him any trouble; it's too much trouble for me (and I have a lot of homework I could be doing right now, but I am choosing to ensure that this problem is righted). Anyway, I don't feel it was appropriate for Raul to just delete the template because there were adequate reasons not to delete it. It also didn't formally go through the process for deleting. Templates shouldn't just be removed from pages at a person's will. Overall, I don't think Raul was in the right to delete this and I would just like comment on this. I repeat that I am not looking for him to get into trouble, I would just like to right an obvious wrong. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmm ok, I can go with that. :) If the community is some how unable to figure this out on its own and it requires one person, fine. Though honestly I do think at this stage, the community is mature enough to think about maintaining the main page itself, but I won't go there :) As far as the templates, if you feel process was violated , we have deletion review for a reason :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of going to DRV, but I quickly realized that my issue was more about the ideas behind the deletion than the deletion of the actual template. Plus, it would be too much work to revert all the edits he made to fully remove the templates from all the pages. Again, I don't think this is just a deletion issue; I think it is an abuse-of-power issue on a small but growing scale. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this correctly... You're forgoing doing your homework because you feel Raul654 is being a dick by deleting a template on article talk pages that says that a specific date is being requested for a featured article to be on the main page? Exactly why is this a big deal that requires administrator attention? Grandmasterka 22:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue, if you've been following it, is not straightforward at all. It all, however, stems from the fact the Raul is in a position where he has been given the sole rights to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure an article appears on TFA each day. The latest problem was, yes, the deletion of these templates. But certainly there have been other problems, including a poor attitude, a lack of ambition to work with others to fix problems that may (or may not) exist, among other things. I really am not sure myself what I'm looking for here because I certainly don't think he should be blocked or desysopped or anything else. I just want to have other administrators assess the situation because I think his actions are going unchecked. (And FYI, the homework reference was for effect. Haha.) _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that if "the community" wants to have some sort of conversation about how long the "Featured Article director" appointment lasts, this isn't the right venue for it. It's not clear to me what admin action is needed here. Jkelly 23:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the comment "If you would still like to help work out a solution, feel free to contact me." is a clear statement by Jared that he wants to take over from Raul, and given the manner in which this is being pursued, Jared replacing Raul is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. -- Nick ^t 23:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: I certainly don't want the position. It is too high stress and time consuming for me. I do, however, think it is worth the time to think of a logical solution. Please dismiss this whole thread if you don't believe there is anything an admin can do to fix the situation. If you can fix it, please do. If it is an unfixable situation, though, I we can leave this issue be right here. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  23:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you're trying to fix something that isn't broken. Raul654 does a superb job keeping that whole thing organized. It's a potential problem any time someone's article doesn't get promoted, or doesn't get promoted when they want, or if it doesn't end up on the main page at the right time or at all. All that can reasonably be expected is that he handles it gracefully any time there is a bone of contention. It might be wise for him to have an interim coordinator ready in the interest of cross training, but that is nothing that belongs on this page. --Spike Wilbury 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that too many interests are at stake to solve Main Page problems individually by consensus--everyone just argues fervently for their favorite article. There are two possible solutions: employ a rigid system, which is the solution for pictures (they appear in the order they were featured), or have a director. Since we've never had any kind of consensus about what the rigid system would be if there were one, we're left with Raul. It's imperfect, since people bug Raul constantly and he gets (understandably) grouchy about that, but it's the best compromise we've got so far, and Raul stands in the way of total chaos. Chick Bowen 00:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the discussions were going fine on the various talk pages in question. The deletion of the templates could have been done at TfD, but there are arguments for db-author and WP:IAR in Raul's favour. Not too much to discuss here. More input at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests would be more helpful. Carcharoth 00:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

On the note prior, Jared couldn't be the FA director even if he wanted to be, as he hasn't been given the trust of the community to edit protected pages at this time. Daniel 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Raul654. Oh, wait, that wasn't the question ws it? Oh, no, I see it was. Endorse, then. And also endorse application of the Wikitrout to Jared if he continues this silliness. It ain't broke, and even if it was, this would not be the place to fix it. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there definitely are some problems, but I am definitely not trying to solve them here. That's what the talk pages are for. What I was trying to do here was right a wrong whereby Raul deleted something with little to no community support, knowing darn well there were active objections two sections below. That's what's really irking me here. I just think he thinks he's able to do whatever he wants in regards to the FA/TFA process, and I think he's sadly mistaken. Sure he was ratified as TFA coordinator, but that was a long time ago, had a limited group voting, and frankly, times have changed since then. I was just hoping that someone here could have some sense to talk to him admin-to-admin, telling him that he has overstepped his limits because apparently he doesn't think he has any, or at least that's the impression I get from him. And once again, I not, have never, nor will ever wish to become the TFA dictator; the whole idea of doing so would be against what I've been fighting for for the last couple days. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  10:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is a procedural issue. Any further discussion of the way FA and TFA is handled should take place at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, Village Pump, or a similar venue. nadav 10:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? This is nothing to do with Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Raul's only involvement with WP:FAC is to carry out the promotions based on the community discussions there. I think you meant Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. The template discussions could take place at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion and Wikipedia:Deletion review. The Village pump is also not the right place to discuss these issues, though a link there advertising the discussion might be appropriate. No offence, but if you are going to direct discussion somewhere else, at least try and link to the right place. :-) Carcharoth 12:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • or a similar venue was a catch-all for any place but here. Jared has very controversial ideas that would radically affect a component of Wikipedia that has become fundamental: the whole featured content scheme. My point was that discussion of those ideas should take place somewhere where there is a lot of room for long debates, strawpolls, etc. nadav 02:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing any real issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User possibly tried to put Wikipedia in trouble with MPAA

User Kirbytime (talk · contribs · block log) has put a secret HD-DVD encryption key that the MPAA has been trying to erase from the web (see news article) and has also pursued legal action in order to prevent publication of the key. This is a bad faith edit, meant to put Wikipedia in legal problems. For example from the news site:

DMCA take down notices have been issued to sites like Spooky Action at a Distance and Digg.

The Digg users who published them have even had their accounts closed by mods.

This user's edit and the diff (including my news link, if possible) should be deleted and made inaccessible to protect Wikipedia from any possible legal trouble. By the way this is the same user who last week wrote the words "fuck you" in a hidden comment and edit-warred with admins who rightfully tried to remove it. Last week he got blocked for 3RR, abuse, disruptive editing and his block expired today. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that is needed, since the key is in the AACS encryption key controversy article. That is certainly worse then a hidden comment. Prodego ^talk 02:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok. I see, we are safe then. thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted it as "silly keyspam nonsense", which indeed it is. It's pretty close to WP:POINT - Alison ☺ 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

kirbytime indef blocked

I'm done with him. I don't care whether the key is on Wikipedia or not, but he is just trolling by inserting it in his userspace as a comment. It may be acceptable fair use in the article, it's not fair use in his userspace. I've blocked Kirbytime indefinitely; I don't think he's here for the encyclopedia anymore, if he ever was. If another admin wants to undo the block, I won't scream about it, but unless there is a clear sign of an intent to turn this behavior around, I think it would be ill-advised. ··coelacan 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, good call. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

He's posted an extremely pleasant unblock request. [13]. I don't really understand this whole situation with the key itself; however, it's quite clear to me that Kirbytime posted this as an act of trolling. I will not object to this block given Kirbytime's history of disruption. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. We have got to learn the difference between people who are here to help, and people who are not. The former, when they misbehave, get all manner of opportunities to reform, and rightly so. It is too bad we fritter away so much goodwill and energy by extending the same to the second group. Hesperian 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the block log, I endorse the block. He should have been gone a long time ago. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And note the subsequent (not very) veiled threat to sockpuppet. I should say that Kirbytime has just given his block the strongest possible endorsement. Hesperian 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep.[14] As long as it's agreed this is a community ban, any puppets can be blocked and reverted on sight. ··coelacan 03:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disgree with indef block. The code is certainly not supposed to add anything to encyclopedia but it is not vandalism either. First of all, it is his own userpage. Our contributions to our own userpages are not supposed to be of encyclopedic value in the first place. Having said that, addition of the code on that page was quite unnecessary. BUT it doesn't deserve an indef block. For just adding a hidden message to personal website. It is true that Kibri have had some blocks over "request" for some sex related pics which I don't approve but I think he has stoped that (or please prove me wrong).

I suggest for an indef block, his case should be submitted to Arbcom. --Aminz 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody WP:OWNs any pages on Wikipedia, including the userpages connected with their accounts. Userpages are not required to be encyclopedic content they way articles are, but they are to facilitate work on the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Myspace, as the saying goes. And trolling on one's userpage is definitely blockable. 75.62.6.237 05:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of encyclopedic content or not; but a question of copyright infringement. It may be fair use in the article, and there are reasonable arguments that it is allowable in the article under WP:NFCC. But that explicitly does not extend to userspace. ··coelacan 03:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What does fair use have to do with this? --ElKevbo 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but Ctrl-F for "I consider it blatant trolling" below, as I believe the block stands on Kirby's intent, regardless of the exact legality. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, I still don't see how a copyright infringment can justify indef-block. It is too harsh. Indef-blocking of a user means that the user doesn't satisfy even the lower standards expected from a user. --Aminz 04:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the result of an extended pattern of behavior, not just this single issue. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

agree Kirbytime obviously wansn't indef blocked for the MPAA copyright issue. He was blocked because of a whole series of problems. Neither Wikipedia, nor any decent human being, should ever tolerate pedophiles. The FBI keeps files on people who try to search pictures of child pornography... --ProtectWomen 08:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with an indefinite block as well. — MichaelLinnear 03:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that we didn't block the user just for pasting the code; there were plenty of other blocks issued in the past feew weeks for causing disruption, including asking for NSFW images at articles, including Child pornography. I feel like we gave this user way too many chances. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Zscout370(edit conflict), Kirbitime was asking for addition of pictures but as far as I am aware he has stoped it for awhile (please correct me otherwise). I think it is best to be addressed through RfCs and ArbCom. On the surface, issuing an indef block for some hidden addition to a personal userpage really seems unjustified.--Aminz 03:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you prefer if I unblocked and reblocked indefinitely for threatening to sockpuppet? Because he's done that already now. ··coelacan 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This kind of case is a waste of time at RFC and a waste of ArbCom's time. Once a troll, always a troll. Editors that take actions like this are not welcome to continue editing here. --Spike Wilbury 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, it is his objection to "indef-block" for adding something to personal userpage. I think we are moving too fast. --Aminz 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MichaelLinnear, this is not a vote. Please explain your objection. ··coelacan 03:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is overly harsh. — MichaelLinnear 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, as you may be able to convince another admin: if the block were reduced, when would we be free from his trolling? When would the games stop? Do you have reason to believe that he's going to improve his behavior? I don't mean to pick a fight or anything; if there's answers to these questions that I and others are overlooking, someone should put them on the table. ··coelacan 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

May I conclude that a more appropriate reason for blocking is "exhausting the community's patience"? —Kyриx 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please list User's faults. Please note that I agree that Kirbitime's instance on porn image was disruptive but did he continue this? I think he stopped it (please correct me otherwise) --Aminz 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or Coelacan? —Kyриx 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To you actually :) --Aminz 04:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I never expressed an opinion supporting or opposing the block. The above was just a conclusion drawn from observation. So I don't quite get your request. —Kyриx 04:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that :P I misunderstood your comment. --Aminz 04:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, do you really want me to make a list of his diffs? I'll have to probably split it into 3 columns to prevent the page from getting lengthy. Here's one group diff though: edit-warring with admins. You should support better users of Wikipedia. Realize that you will be helped more if you have good users working with you; at the least not anyone who edit wars with admins, requests child porn, writes the words "Fuck you" in a hidden comment, gives a link to Piss Christ and so on. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't say that kirbi satisfies the highest standards but that he doesn't fail the lowest ones. Some of these edits may not be justified but may be explained. Aside from these you don't have a good editting record either Matt. --Aminz 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with high or low standards of editing, and everything to do with incessant trolling behavior. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We all realize that indefinite doesn't mean infinite right? John Reaves (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I hoped to make that clear at the beginning of this section; if another admin honestly thinks he's going to shape up, they can reverse the block. For what it's worth, he's now saying he copied the number there through a sort of misunderstanding.[15] You'll have to read his talk page. But I think the threats of sockpuppetry speak well enough for his intent here. ··coelacan 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would consider unblocking if I could take Kirbytime's protestations of innocence seriously. But his history makes me unable to believe him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

John Reaves, i think indefinite means infinite. It means that the user fails the minimal standards. --Aminz 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean infinite. It mean an undefined period of time, i.e. it could eventually be reversed. John Reaves (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think in practice it means the same thing. --Aminz 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I've seen indefinite blocks overturned. —Kyриx 04:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern, indef block seems too harsh. Some of the previous blocks were related to asking on the talk pages for porn pictures which was bad but as far as I am aware the user has stoped that to best of my knowledge. --Aminz 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with indef. Too much trolling. - Merzbow 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this long due indef block. This is one of the strongest trolls I've ever seen. The longer you keep this user in, the more trouble he will create for users and admins (edit-wars with admins) and the more you'll keep wondering why he wasnt blocked before.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are far from an impartial party in this. — MichaelLinnear 04:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For whoever says this is copyright infringement, this is not; it might be a violation of the DMCA, but you cannot copyright a 128-bit number. At best, it qualifies as a trade secret, which means that once released to the public like it is now, it is no longer controllable legally. The DMCA is the only law that applies here, most likely. "Fair use" is irrelevant, from what I know. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The (bad) idea is that it's a circumvention tool and thus subject to the DMCA. I agree that it's daft and that fair use has nothing to do with it. --ElKevbo 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, while I will not express an opinion on the block, I would suggest that any block made should be specifically made for the user's incivility and attacks, not for posting a number which has been run in many major news sources such as Wired, Yahoo News, and so forth. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 04:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The block should be applied because he deliberately makes edits like this to cause maximum chaos; his history is full of such behavior. - Merzbow 04:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider it blatant trolling, the same as if he had written expletives in his html comments (as he did last time). The intended purpose is disruption, even if the action was not a violation of US law. It's WP:POINT either way, and he's given us enough of that. I don't think he's here for the encyclopedia so much as for a "game" inside an encyclopedia; I stand by my block. Again, other admins have the prerogative of reversing the block. I will not. ··coelacan 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, writing hidden stuff on his personal userpage doesn't harm wikipedia nor produce chaos; I assume he is blocked and he is free at home so he started playing with his userpage. The main problem is with the article not userpages (and even then hidden writings). User pages are not supposed to add anything to the wikipedia.

coelacan, I am not saying he satisfies the highest standards but that indef-block(i.e. failing the lowest standards) seems harsh to me. But that's only me. --Aminz 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this "failing the lowest standards" stuff is. An indef block represents my appraisal that the net effect of Kirbytime is more trolling than benefit, and that he's exhausted the patience of too many other editors. How many times has he been on ANI in the last month? How much time have we wasted running around this guy? I'm hoping that when this thread is archived, the answer will be "no more". ··coelacan 04:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the edits he made adding the key, for what it's worth. Might also be worth noting Kirbytime's reasoning for inserting it (I have my doubts - the key was inserted with ":" after each two numbers. This was done presumably to circumvent the blacklist, because I can't think of any time I've seen the key formatted like that...) Ral315 » 04:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's formatted like that on a couple of websites. — MichaelLinnear 04:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I have a problem with the block. My only interaction with Kirbytime was the ANI thread where he claimed to be confused about what kind of images constituted child pornography. If someone can demonstrate that he's made recent positive contributions to the encyclopedia, I'd reconsider, but this user seems like a determined, long-term troll to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am personally aware, the user had stopped that. --Aminz 04:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Because he was blocked for it. So he moved on to other things, like revert warring and html comment games. ··coelacan 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of "html comment games". Would you please explain it. Thanks --Aminz 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"HTML games" refer to the user putting thing in <!--hidden comments-->. John Reaves (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

One example is this edit. You can't see them just looking at the page, but they show up when you edit. Phony Saint 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This editor appears to be an unrepentant troll. I was around for his requests for child porn. While he finally gave up that effort he didn't do so quickly. I see some editors here saying he wasn't that bad but I don't see anyone pointing to positive contributions to offset his disruption. On the whole, I think Wikipedia is better off without this user's involvement. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Those who want to review Kirbytime's recent ANI history can see archives 240, 239, 230, 227, 221, 221. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good block. We don't have to put up with this nonsense from obvious trolls.--Jersey Devil 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

an indefinite ban is excessive for vandalizing your own talk pages imho, if he is to be blocked indefinitely it should be done by the arbcom Bleh999 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This block doesn't make sense as the key is out in the open in the Wikipedia article on the subject and Jimbo Wales has said there is no problem with posting the key to Wikipedia. The indef block for this non-"offense" is totally improper. That said, I am unaware of his past history, just that this latest offense doesn't appear to be an actual "offense." --Abnn 05:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Shall I unblock and reblock for threatening sockpuppetry, instead? Would that make things clearer? ··coelacan 05:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

He didn't actually threaten sockpuppetry from what I read, rather he suggested being unfairly banned drives some to do so, I doubt he would admit he was going to sockpuppet and thus expose his intentions Bleh999 05:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can read "It's almost like you guys are asking me to sockpuppet" any other way than "I will sockpuppet". ··coelacan 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I can't comment as I don't know. In all honesty, I can't knowledgeable oppose or support a indefban based on an analysis of his overall behavior as I am not familiar enough with him and this territory. --Abnn 05:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, he has been helpful in the past: I first met him and encouraged him to help us out on WP:PNT, where we needed people who could read arabic script at the time. He did handle a few cases. But I understand the sentiment behind his indef-block due to his behavior since then and I don't oppose it. Grandmasterka 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the block, the editor has been warned several times. (If one considers previous blocks warnings, which I do). block log Anynobody 05:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime now threatens "revenge".[16] I don't have enough AGF kool-aid in my cupboard to continue entertaining the possibility of unblocking. Later, ··coelacan 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hos is that athreat of revenge? Viridae^Talk 06:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Threat or not, it crossed the line into trolling... again. I have now protected his talk page. Hesperian 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For those that don't know, it is a quote from the Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare: [17]. --Abnn 06:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I knew it was a quote, but it doesn't appear to be a threat - the context of it says that even more. Viridae^Talk 08:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Kirbytime had contributed for a year without major problems - I recall him being at some times reasonable and at others contentious and not really standing out in this respect - but recently has for whatever reason gone totally rogue. I was amazed to see him resume edit warring to push a completely ridiculous image (since deleted) immediately after coming off a 24hr block for…well, edit-warring, and having only minutes earlier assured others (sort of) that he wasn't going to immediately resume edit-warring after his block expired.

Re his latest behavior, this explanation strains credulity, and who knows what we should make of this Shakespearean reference? ("And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?") Besides the vague hints of a threat, this continues his very odd line of am-I-Muslim-Jewish-or-atheist identity trolling which like too many of his recent contributions seems designed to draw others into pointless discussions.

Were this block infinite and irrevocable, I suppose I might oppose it, but indefinite is a different matter: he is and should be free to petition for an unblock at some point in the future (say, a couple months from now) if and when he's regained his senses and is prepared to admit to his missteps instead of pretending he doesn't understand why the community is pushing back. In the meantime, I counsel Kirbytime to step away from Wikipedia for a bit and not make the situation any worse by sockpuppeting; see User:DavidYork71 for a user who dealt with this situation exactly the wrong way, and a result has probably blown his chances to come back.Proabivouac 07:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the above statement... He's been okay in the past and we should leave the door open a crack barring further problems. Maybe one problem of his led to another and he let himself snowball out of control... Just a thought. Grandmasterka 08:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• My patience with Kirbytime is certainly exhausted, though my patience is pretty exhaustible these days. I would think that if he asks nicely after a month or so away form the project, to regain his perspective, we would be quite likely to let him back in, but right now he's looking like a time-sink with no obvious payback for the project. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't know that too many editors are following Kirbi's edits... :D --Aminz 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

His name pops up rather too often. I have left a note on his Talk. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with the key is that the consensus over at the controversy article talk page seems to indicate that it should only be presented in the article and nowhere else (that's the primary reason it was added to the spam blacklist-- it was being spammed). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirby deserves a long break (i'd say something like 6 months) to review their behaviour and understand that wikipedia is not a game. Instead of editing the encyclopedia we end up having long discussions that we could have avoided. But indef is surely a harsh block. At least they've contributed plenty of stuff. For me, it should have been 6 months, no more no less. We have had trolling, desruptive and pointy cases much more worse than that but people are still present in the project, probably because they changed their behaviour. For me, it should have been 6 months, no more no less. In brief, if there is someone i totally agree w/ in this thread is Proabivouac. Excellent analysis and synthesis. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be considerable support for unblocking at some point in the future if Kirbytime doesn't sockpuppet. So, do we leave the indef on and let him ask after X months, or do we reduce the block now to X months? ··coelacan 21:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer reducing it to 6 months. As i said above, it is too harsh compared w/ many other cases. I don't want to bring names but that is the middle ground i believe. In case of sockpuppetry it will become an indef if not a ban. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.Proabivouac 03:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"too harsh" ? This user was requesting samples of child pornography for Christs sake. Kirbytime not only doesn't belong on Wikipedia- he probably belongs in jail. At the very least, he ought to be under some kind of internet equivalent to Megan's law. Too bad we don't have a way to enforce something like that.

FayssalF, you are implying that other users have done worse things than Kirby- if you can name one action worse than trolling for pictures of child porn, please tell me. I'd really like to know.--ProtectWomen 08:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally like following structured process when dealing w/ such issues. This is my method as an admin. It could satisfy many people as it could bother many others.

Let us be fair and avoid being emotional. We are not a real-life law enforcement body to put people on jail. We do block and ban users from Wikipedia. That is all we can do.

Let's avoid being subjective. As far as the child porno case in concerned, my memory tells me that this issue was considered closed and he got punished and blocked for 48h though it should have been at least a month or that he could have been indef blocked at that time. Since then, he hasn't brought that child porno subject again. So why are we bringing it again and again?

Now, we are talking about his general and overall behaviour. Is is a troll? Yes in many occasions he showed signs of being one. Has he made points? Yes in many occasions. Many have done the same and worse in overall. So i believe now when i say it is too harsh it certainly makes sense and therefore there's no need to bring names because i consider their cases as closed as well until further notice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, many have not "done the same and worse overall". Anyone who has is permanently blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support for indefinite block. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But what about...

User:Matt57? This post and similar ones derive from stalking Kirbytime, and in some cases it seems Kirby trolled to see if someone (always Matt) would notice it. While I myself can 'monitor' troublesome users at times, Matt's cross the 'stalking' line because he is obviously "hunting" Kirby. Besides, Matt57 is an obvious tendentious editor (anti-Islam direction), which is detrimental to the community. I don't know all of the details as well as others may as I have relatively few dealings with this editor (and they have been unsatisfactory), but I definitely think that doing something about Matt57 is a good idea at this point. Any ideas? The Behnam 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Matt57's actions are relevant in this incident, unless Matt57 is directly inciting Kirbytime to troll. It seems to be the other way around, from what you say. Phony Saint 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely think Kirbytime needed a big block awhile back during the porn images thing. I'm just suggesting where things should move next. You know, when you have two problems it is good to get rid of both of them instead of just one. The Behnam 16:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If Matt57 is really a problem editor, his name would be appearing here in relation to other editors and incidents, and not just with Kirbytime. — MichaelLinnear 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Behnam, what did I do wrong? If someone asks for Child Porn, does it mean I stalked a person if I reported this to admins, or reverted their disruptive edits (for which Kirby was blocked 1 week ago)? Perhaps you think that Chris Hansen is also a potential stalker of Kirbytime. No sorry, and I do have my eye on yours edits ([18]) like we all do on everyone else's. Please keep your accusations of stalking or disruptive edits to yourself. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Matt57 had been inciting Kirby to do what he's done but that is irrelevant. We cannot prevent/punish people basing on assumptions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Faysal, no I didnt "incite" anyone here. I'm not responsible for Kirbytime's actions of asking for Child porn, wiki linking of Piss Christ, edit warring with admins and all that stuff. Good god. No thanks, I havent done anything wrong except go after him, revert his disruptive edits, report him for trolling and all that. The admins made a mistake to let this vicious troll wreck havoc here. The big question I wonder is: How much damage do you let a troll do before he gets blocked? As for the block time, this user should be blocked for atleast 6-9 months regardless of their request to unblock. I doubt he will change though so he's likely to get blocked again, but then again, all you need is good judgement to see that this user is not here on this website for anything good. He does his work on the Reference desks to cleanse himself of the guilt or to use it as an excuse or 'proof' of his good intentions. Then he goes and interwikis to Piss Christ or edit wars with admins. This is trolling par excellence, as a user said above - pretty obvious. Its simply amazing how much time of the admins this person has wasted.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We just said the same thing Matt. I said it briefier than you. I haven't said you did it. "Maybe" means "suppose" in that sentence. I think you thought i was talking about assumption related to Kirby. No i was talking about the assumptions re you "inciting" him. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support - This user should have been gone after the child porn pictures debacle. Instead, Kirbytime was allowed to troll repeatedly with several more blocks until the final (long overdue) indef block. Kudos to coelacan for stepping up todo the right thing --ProtectWomen 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Second that. Finally, someone gets out the troll spray. I support coelacan's block - as she said earlier, the net effect of Kirbytime was more harm than good. That's justification for a block if I ever saw one. ♠PMC♠ 23:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly support coelacan's bold action. Guy said it best; Kirby is a timesink and his contributions here are not valuable enough to outweigh the community's time that he wastes. Indef is the way to go here. Perhaps it could be lifted in the future if Kirby demonstrates that he understands the apropriate way to behave, but I don't see any reason to just slap an arbitrary time limit on this block and hope he gets a clue in that time period.--Isotope23 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• I would endorse either an indefinite block (that's subject to review down the road) or a lengthy set block. Kirbytime's disruptions more than offset his positive contributions. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence?

I find it shocking that KirbyTime is blocked. He was such a resonable editor. In anycase, was there ever an RfC filed? Is there any compilation of evidence (edits) the KirbyTime has been trolling? Has KirbyTime been allowed to respond to these arguments?

It seems to me the block has come out of nowehere. Can someone clarify this. Thanks.Bless sins 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if you read the above thread, and Kirbytime's talk page, you will find the answers to all your questions. ··coelacan 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page?

If Kirbytime is indefinitely blocked, how is it that he is still able to edit his talk page? Just curious. ---Cathal 18:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

All blocked users can edit their talk pages. Otherwise {{unblock}} wouldn't have a point. -Wafulz 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Art Dominique

ResolvedAll socks have been blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Will (aka Wimt) 11:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned user Art Dominique is evading his ban again by using sock puppets: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Art_Dominique. --Whiskey 08:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Dimitri Harlamov (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) shows nothing in the block log. But I can't block; MediaWiki tells me the user is already blocked. I imagine Fut. Perf. has blocked, but does anybody know more about this bug? ··coelacan 21:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  Unblocked and reblocked just so we know it sticks—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of speech

I admit that i don't understand what the recent link added to Freedom of speech is actually linking to, but it appears to me that linking from an article to a user's talk page — User:Advocates For Free Speech — is, at the least, unusual. Someone want to take a look? (And if possible, explain what the h... this is???) thanks, Richard Myers 10:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Advocates For Free Speech's link has been removed, but what concerns me more is his userpage and talk page, if he attempting to be a "wiki-lawyer"? Ryan Postlethwaite 11:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it may also be a role account. Advocates, "Our purpose", "We defend", "We inform". --OnoremDil 11:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This guy is presumably a sock (role account or not) of indef blocked User:Bully-Buster-007. The way, the truth, and the light 11:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

already blocked as a sock. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In his defense(?), I did find "The virus in the sandbox" section of his page interesting in a "can anyone really be that stupid" way. --MediaMangler 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Was still being nonsensical (reverting block notices etc.), so page blanked and protected. Review welcome. Daniel 13:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Some background references:

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive May#workforall.net
2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive May#Requestion
3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#The workforall.net spammer meets the sandbox fire-parrot -- for everything else, there's Mastercard (Permanent link)
4. User_talk:Requestion#workforall.net_linkspam (Permanent link)
5. User_talk:Requestion#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction (Permanent link)
6. User_talk:Ioannes_Pragensis#Can_You_help_against_vandalism_.3F (Permanent link)
7. Talk:Economic_data#Workforall.net_external_link
8. User_talk:Kuru#ciber_bullying (Permanent link)
9. User_talk:Bully-Buster-007#Welcome.2C(Permanent link)
10. meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/04#workforall.net linkspam (Permanent link)
11. User talk:Jitse Niesen#80.200.73.228 (Permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I put his talk page back up. It doesn't seem to do any harm and may stop him from creating another sock for the same thing. It's protected now anyway. The way, the truth, and the light 11:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Now it's a copy of User talk:Bully-buster-007. The way, the truth, and the light 11:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As the victim of the majority of workforall.net's abuse I just want to say that it's fine by me if the comments / propaganda are reinstated. As User:A. B. mentioned, it might prevent future re-creation of the same thing. The discussion at User_talk:Bully-Buster-007 might also be a useful record of the events that transpired. I leave this up to your better judgement. (Requestion 17:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

MDS International / MDS America conflict bothering Wikipedia

→ See also: MDS International section on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Ok. We've been here before. I know it has much to do w/ WP:COI but the latest developments have gone beyond that. Believe me, i consider this case the most difficult one i've handeled so far and that's why i need help. This is the situation in brief:

1. MDS America is in a legal conflict w/ MDS International (based in France). Notice that MDS Intl. redirects to MVDDS dispute as its article has been deleted twice (went thru DRV).
2. Both MDS America employees (User:Bhimaji, User:WizardOfWor, maybe User:Macrhino as well though i am not sure, but of course many IPs hailing from Stuart, Florida where the company is located. Also User:72.19.4.235 claimed once that he is the CEO of MDS America who already got an article called Kirk Kirkpatrick) and MDS Intl User:Jeanclauduc aka User:83.206.63.250 (claiming he is the CEO of MDS Intl) ones have been editing in wikipedia and they have been edit warring of course and in many occasions personal attacks and uncivility have been noticed.
3. On The account User:Fabrice10 has been created on May 2nd. His first edit was at the AfD page claiming he is the son of User:Jeanclauduc and that he is still a shareholder of MDS Intl while cooperating w/ MDS America. What we can get from that is that the alleged father and son are engaged in a family business conflict as well!!!
4. I've tried to mediate between the two sides as you can get from the ANI link above (because User:Jeanclauduc speaks French but poor English) but he stopped cooperating after i asked him a few questions for clarification but he never contacted me again.
5. On May 15th, User:83.206.63.250 has personally attacked and threatened User:Fabrice10 to divulge personal info about their family affairs. In fact he has already done it in French. As a result User:Kuru blocked him for 31 hours. His alleged son Fabrice10 has just divulged on my talk page some info about him which i've just removed.
6. Editors User:Nadav1 and User:EdJohnston as well as User:Ronz and User:zzuuzz have tried to sort this mess out but in vain.
7. For more information please refer to this case at WP:COI/N

Maybe i missed some facts/incidents but all i want is a community opinion. Blocking Jeanclauduc indef would not fix the problem as we have the COI stuff going on here w/ employees of a company are editing many related topics. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I want to personally thank FayssalF for having the patience and fortitude for dealing with this very complicated case. The file over at WP:COIN has been open for over a month now, and while some progress has been made in sorting out the COI issues, there is still much to be done. What has made this saga especially difficult for me, and perhaps has also tried the patience of other editors who have tried dealing with this, is the constant bickering and personal attacks that have continued to appear on the talk pages. Some of these attacks, namely those emanating from the presumed JC Ducasse, have grown especially viscious as of late. I hope other editors can suggest some sort of solution to this whole mess. nadav 12:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How about soft-protecting the two articles and their talk pages? I've never seen talk pages protected before, but it would stop or at least heavily reduce the bickering there. Maybe merge MDS America into MVDDS dispute first as proposed? --Ronz 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That won't solve the problem radically. There a conflict of interests in play. I believe a RfC would be the best option for now. But let's wait for some feedbacks here and see. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronz's solution could work. It would at least stop the barrage of anon IP's. Currently, there is little non-disputed material in MDS America: despite repeated pleadings from the regular editors, all the effort from the SPA's has been channelled either into the fighting, or else into technical discussions that are unsourced and probably don't belong in the article anyway. Kuru has been trying recently to direct the parties' attention towards improving the article rather than fighting, but this has been tried before and has not worked. I added citation needed tags for the material in MDS America some time ago, but nothing has been forthcoming. MVDDS dispute and MVDDS are basically the only articles for which there are secondary sources out there. Since the parties seem intent on using the talk pages as a battle ground despite our perpetual warnings, I am tempted to agree that talkpage semiprotection is the cure. nadav 06:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your summary is both inaccurate and insulting, nadav. I am not "intent on using the talk pages as a battle ground." I have been attempting to have a reasonable discussion on the topic matter. Any objective reading of the edit history will show that Jean Claude has been intent on battling on any talk page he can find.

Regarding your claim that the talk page contains too many "technical discussions that are unsourced and probably don't belong in the article anyway," I've been attempting to answer questions from un-involved editors about some of the technology. If a neutral editor is interested enough in the article to be asking questions of me, I feel that it is appropriate for me to spend my time helping them understand the technology. Hopefully this will allow them to edit the article as they feel appropriate from an NPOV.

Regarding the citation tags you mention: I should have noticed them sooner. The first one is for material that is actually in the MVDDS article. The second one is a request for a citation indicating that we don't buy our systems from Jean Claude's company, MDSi - I'll see if I can find a citation, but Jean Claude's edit history here should make it quite obvious that we don't have an ongoing business relationship with him. The third citation is in-progress - we're going to release the network diagram for an operational system.

Perhaps it's true that some people from MDSA are too easily trolled into responding to Jean Claude. Personally, I find it difficult to criticize somebody for responding to a threat to distribute pornographic pictures of their wife. The fact that Jean Claude is permitted to continue his diatribes on Wikipedia is the fundamental cause of the problem. It is challenging to have a civil and productive discussion when such insults are the most frequent diffs you see.

If you'll look at my own talk page, you'll note that at least one NPOV editor felt that my edits on the MDSA article were good. I'm not trying to brag, I just feel that I am being unfairly criticized by nadav. Bhimaji 13:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't take his criticisms personally. It is a fair statement that both parties are involved in an edit war, but your own, personal responses have been level headed and patient. I'd like to try this one last attempt at ferreting out the actual conflict with the article, if there is one. I've proposed refactoring the talk page to remove all the off-topic crap - if there's no serious objections. If this fails and turns into a edit war/rant, then we can go nuclear. Kuru ^talk 13:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am Fabrice, I have been dealing with my father for years. Up to now, no one (MDSA or various editors) has ever insulted my father or criticized him in these talks. Whatever anyone is writing, JC Ducasse (JCD) will argue forever. Up to now everything he wrote is incorrect. Say black, he will say white; say white he will say black. The only way for cooling him down is to let him say anything he wants and no one should answer or comment what he say (at all). Eventually his comments could just be removed without bringing any comment.
We could argue with JCD forever, but has all his claims are not correct it will be a loss of time.
But just as an example, for arguing against the KU band broadband solution that I designed in 1996 and later improved with MDSA, JC Ducasse is mentioning in these talks a "patent" that he say having filed in 1985
But this is not a pattent and it has no relation with what we are alking about.
JC Ducasse is referring to the document available on MDSi Web site http://www.mds.fr/patent/patent.html
It is not a patent it is what is called an “enveloppe Soleau”. (i-DEPOTs ?)
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enveloppe_Soleau
http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/newsletter/6/html/EN/howToProtectYourInvention.html (in English)
The purpose of this "envellope" is just to show that the writer knew the process before any patent can be written.
The process for registering this "enveloppe" is the following : JCDucasse wrote 2 envelopes and sent them to the intellectual property (IP) office in 1987 (not 1985). Then the IP office keep one envelloppe and send the other one with a date stamp to JCD.
Then, if someone else patent the same process, the owner of the enveloppe can use the process for his personal usage (not commercial).
Once the enveloppe is OPEN (like on MDSi web site), then it became null. It has to be opened during a court case in front of a judge.
In addition, the Soleau Enveloppe of JCD is not mentioning any Internet or broadband at all. In 1987 the Internet was not popular enough for being known and mentioned by JCD.
The "envellope" is just describing the american MMDS process (70s) and is mentioning “ ANALOG TV broadcast (video and audio) using hyperfrequencies” (No satellite sharing, No digital, No internet, ....). It was demonstrated during Northpoint trial that such process couldn’t be patented.
In addition, MMDS was already existing before JCD wrote the Soleau enveloppe. By renaming the "enveloppe Soleau" into "Patent" JCD creates a confusion and is feeding the debates with incorrect information which are very difficult to control.
Sorry for this long message . --Fabrice10 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected both articles for 2 weeks. Durova^Charge! 19:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pikimon Vandalism

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This user struck again at WP:AR2. Can an Admin halt this? Bearian 12:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any recent vandalism there. That user's last edit to WP:AR2 was in March. Resurgent insurgent 13:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. If I'm missing something, please let me/us know. A diff link is a quick way to point us in the right direction, if you need to. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Block review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Libsmasher (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely; block supported by commentators. MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – Appears to be resolved. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Libsmasher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account which, as the name suggests, exists solely to "correct" Wikipedia's liberal bias. Or rather,m to quote his user talk, To me, there is nothing more satisfying than crushing the myths that a liberal lives by, i.e., that FDR solved the Great Depression, that JFK actually WON the 1960 election, or that LBJ's war on poverty, the cost at over 30 TRILLION dollars, was effective. No prizes for guessing, then, what happened to this editors contributions to Mike Farrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Ed Asner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and so on. This choice one, for example: [19], which includes a link to a right-wing site on Mike Farrell with the link summary Critical article on Farrell's involvement in left-wing ANTI-AMERICAN politics - Libsmasher's own capitalisation. It's highly likely that this is the same individual as made these anonymous edits: [20], [21] and so on. Libsmasher's provocative username and tendentious edits to biographies of living individuals seemed to me to be grounds enough for a block, but Libsmasher disagrees. From his emails to me:

I love rubbing the face of people like you in the dirt. You have a little power and turn into a censor-nazi. Just because Britain is like that, doesn't mean the rest of the world is. I am the frigging KING of open source intelliegence and here is the date and page number of the article from the LA Times.

TV Doctor From `MASH' Scrubs Up For Salvador Surgery:[Home Edition] by MARJORIE MILLER. Los Angeles Times, Aug 11, 1985. p.17.

Under heavy police guard, Farrell and neurosurgeon Alejandro Sanchez worked for 2 1/2 hours to restore use of the right hand of Nidia Diaz, a commander of the Revolutionary Party of Central American Workers, a faction of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front.

Now unblock me and quit freaking messing with my posts on Farrell.

Keep it up and I'll see about getting your admin status ended.

I've emailed the situation to people further up the food chain to have me unblocked as well as removing your admin status. It cost me ten bucks to have the microfiche of the story researched at the LA Public Library but well worth it. BTW, vice wiping my posts, you should have stream-lined them as per Wiki rules. Have a nice day and reast assured, my next email goes to the co-founder on this.

I take this as garden variety rouge admin abuse bullshit, but invite review of the block anyway. By co-founder I assume he means Larry Sanger, much good may it do him, though if it's Jimbo perhaps he'll have done the world a service by giving the God-King a belly laugh to relieve the 09:F9 foolishness. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally consider edits starting w/ stuff like "Mike's work seems to be enabling terrorism, especially against the USA" as BS. Libsmasher argues that it is referenced and the source was FrontPage mag. Of course there is a BLP issue here as the edit is so inflated and biased. It sounds as if Libsmasher jumped to a conclusion that even the FP mag couldn't do.

However, the indef is too harsh especially that it was his first. Can they learn from their mistake if he'd have gotten a month block?

No way, i've just see the "I love rubbing the face of people like you in the dirt" stuff. Well done Guy! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. That degree of bias and aggression is generally not reformable. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, he has made no edits outside his talk page and yours since December of 2005, so blocking him would not seem to be much of a problem for anyone. He has been 'contributing' as 147.103.49.141, but what he added on Mike Farrell and Ed Asner violated the biography policy. Adding 'Liberalism' under 'See also' at Non sequitur (absurdism) was clearly not a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. He seems not to care, and to intend to continue doing what he came here for - telling The Truth about liberals - so the blp violations and vandalism will continue unless he is blocked. Looks like a good call to me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, good call, Tom said what I wanted to better than I was going to. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. The user's only apparent purpose here is to push an extreme POV (as admitted by the user). Rack it up as a disruption-only account, even without the threatening e-mails. · jersyko talk 14:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Such disruptive users seldom reform. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block per not a battleground.Proabivouac 15:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that if we indef-block him, the terrorists win? MastCell ^Talk 16:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry. Support indef block. MastCell ^Talk 16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block - Having a point of view is one thing; POV-warring openly and proudly is short trip to long ban. Bye bye. Georgewilliamherbert 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Nothing positive is going to come from this user. -- ChrisO 18:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we don't want wankers like this wasting our time. This was a good block. --Tony Sidaway 18:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No need to resort to name calling, even towards disruptive users. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I was referring to a troll who had made about seventy edits in total over a period of eighteen months, was devoted to abusing Wikipedia in order to pursue his virulent hatred for those he regarded as his political rivals, including Cher, Mike Farrell, and Ed Asner. His edits sometimes descended to blatant vandalism, and he was quite clear about his intentions. Let's not dignify him with the name "user". --Tony Sidaway 20:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I think we're done here. MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request

Resolved

 – IP warned, stopped vandalizing for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you should take a look at this and this SDas 15:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

All that needs to be done is reverting and warning the anon. If he continues after warnings, you go to WP:AIV. Phony Saint 15:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I did revert. But I don't think I can risk warning. Besides, adding expletives and nonsense is the clearest case of vandalism. The author's intention is evident. SDas 15:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about that. Anyone can warn in cases of blatant or clear vandalism. Just make sure you are using the appropriate template. This link list all the templates related to warnings. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I put a warning on his talk page. Even in a clear case of vandalism, he won't be blocked unless he's been given warnings first. Phony Saint 15:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I placed a warning on the other IP, although they clearly belong to the same person. SDas 15:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, he might be, if the blocking admin is WP:ROUGE enough, but yes, except in ridiculously blatant or recurrent cases it is certainly best to warn first. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Need a second set of eyes

They call me Mr. Pibb (talk · contribs) has been blocked repeatedly for WP:NPA violations and edit warring. He was originally blocked by me for edit warring on Metromedia. He subsequently was blocked by Alphachimp on April 8th for disruption, personal attacks, edit warring. I blocked him again last night after he started making personal attacks again. He's left some choice words on his talk page, and on my talk page, under an IP here, which reveal some misunderstandings about basic policy (for example, he wasn't banned, he was blocked, and he was warned repeatedly before anyone ever blocked him). In cases where a user has made threats of ongoing harassment against another user, and has shown no ability to keep civil, refrain from making personal attacks, etc, I'd usually block for a while, but as I'm the dude he's threatening to harass "over and over and over and over and over and over again", I'm no longer an uninvolved party. There's also the question of possible sockpuppetry going on over at talk:Metromedia. Mr Pibb wasn't active until a flare-up between other editors, and he suddenly reappeared on the page, within hours. I've already blocked the IP that made the comment on my talk page (no other contributions from that IP before), but there are other IPs involved. Thoughts? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the Mr. Pibb account... I see an escalating example of unacceptable behavior on his talk page, and his threat to continue harassing you leads me to view this as entirely preventive. Given the abuse of his talk page, I'm going to protect it as well. I'll recommend that if he wants to be considered for unblocking, he email unblock-en-l since he won't be able to use the {{unblock}} template. If rotating-IP harassment becomes an issue, you could go to checkuser/Requests for IP check. Thoughts on the appropriateness of this approach? MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and block. So far, no other problems have popped up. If they do, I can take it to CheckUser. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

FatherTree

This user is harrassing me, and other editors, despite being asked to stop. He is also making false accusations. His comments and style are remarkably similiar to that of Sarner, who was blocked on several occassions for similiar behavior. Exmples of Personal Attacks and harrassment can be found in the following diffs:

1. . [[22]]
2. . [[23]]
3. . [[24]]
4. . [[25]]

The dispute is about the Attachment Therapy article, and also involves two other editors who are making false accusations and Personal Attacks, StokerAce, who has had problems before in this regard, and Fainites. See diffs: False Accusation: [[26]] [[27]] [[28]] RalphLender^talk 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC) And who appear to be working in concert regarding this issue. [[29]] [[30]] RalphLender^talk 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Related previous disputed include the following: [[31]] [[32]]

I am not sure how to pursue this. I really think some direct administrative action is necessary. If you can direct me about how to try to resolve this tangled dispute, I'd appreciate it. RalphLender^talk 16:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a contentious issue. I just protected Attachment_Therapy due to edit warring. However this has been going on a long time and may involve conflicts of interest. - ·:·Will Beback ·:· 17:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ralph, I honestly don't see any personal attacks or harassment in those diffs. Mangojuice^talk 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. given the level of edit warring and past history here, and the number of single-purpose accounts (relatively new editors who only edit this article), I do think Administrator intervention would be helpful....If you could become involved that would help. (Maybe Will_Beback, since you have already been involved by putting on the much needed freeze) I am concerned that a small group, mainly single-purpose new users, don't want to even consider mediation....Your help or advice on how to proceed would really be a big great help. Thanks. RalphLender^talk 18:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now the group (Maypole, Fainites, FatherTree, and StokerAce) are refusing mediation and demanding Arbitration...but I thought one had to try mediation before going to that step. I see this as another attempt by them to avoid trying to find a consensus and agrement. RalphLender^talk 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that all of those mentioned are happy to find consensus. The problem is, at this stage RalphLender,DPeterson and others are objecting to things like fixing broken links and tracking down relevant peer-reviewed articles. It makes things very difficult. StokerAce 21:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Given StokerAce's history of conflict on this page and that his is largely a single-purpose account, I think it very important to get Administrative support to work to consensus or have an admin decision made...In any event, Attachment Therapy needs a second set of eyes and some intervention...perhaps mediation. RalphLender^talk 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I tried to edit by consensus for weeks. I made no edits at all to the actual article until agreement was reached on each paragraph. I put up with the rudeness and unreasonable demands of the dominant group and their constant polls. When we finally reached consensus I posted the results, only to have it almost instantly perverted to include yet again, another promotional push for Becker-Weidman, contrary to what was agreed.[33] Forgive me therefore for being a little cynical about your happiness to reach consensus. As for your complaint about Father tree, you have been asked many times to fix the links for your edit about organisations position statements. I fixed one for you, but couldn't find your other sources. When the broken or missing links were brought to your attention, this was the response [34] [[[User:Fainites|Fainites]] 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. I think I'm a relative outsider to this. AT is a new subject to me as I came here with an interest mostly in hypnotherapy. I can see that some of the arguments above are a little inaccurate factually. I don't see much in the way of personal attack anywhere. People have been reminding each other of any known possible biases though. I do think arbitration would be helpful though I havn't been through one before. I don't think anyone is refusing mediation. Some may have voted no, but thats not exactly a refusal in my mind. I am undecided about mediation. There does seem to be some resistance to improving the article from some members and perhaps thats where mediation might help. I'm happy the article has been frozen. There are some glaringly obvious improvements to make that some have reverted already and I find that rather odd. I wish to get to the bottom of it. There do seem to me to be sockpuppets pro-DDP. They also seem to me to be arguing from the position of that of interested parties. Well, I like to do one project at a time, so I will be happy to persist with getting all relevant views into the article at some point. Balance and weight will have to be something for us to work on together. Arbitration sounds fine, mediation may possibly be helpful. Maypole 06:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TTN

Resolved

 – Pending any further unblock requests, this seems resolved. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This User Merged Spongebob Squarepants With the Simpsons! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethdoe92 (talk • contribs)

You're Dead! is not an acceptable message to leave on someone's page, and TTN did not merge Spongebob with the Simpsons. --OnoremDil 17:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just blocked Sethdoe for a week for that behavior. Mangojuice^talk 17:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the message here, as attacks are allowed to be removed. Acalamari 18:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

207.28.221.97

Resolved

 – Blocked. Guess that's resolved?

This user returned from a temporary block and vandalised several pages today including the Did You Know. Canuckle 18:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a very fast problem, but nothing but problems for awhile. Blocked for now. You may want to report future such vandalism problems to WP:AIV for faster response, in the future. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pietras1988

This user (contribs) appears to have been canvassing for a long period of time, though it apears that no one has complained before. His canvassing request states that he would like the user to create an interwiki link for the Kurów article (which, I guess, is his hometown), and includes external links to what appears to be other wikis that aren't Wikipedia-sponsored. After warning him on his talk page, he blanked the page. --Jhortman 18:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

... and, shortly after my first post here, left a personal attack on my talk page and re-blanked his talk page. (diff) --Jhortman 18:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"I hate you" hurts, but it's not quite a personal attack. I'd agree that something should be done about him, though. Phony Saint 18:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right... I probably should have called it "uncivil" and referenced WP:CIVIL instead. I think my initial point is valid, though. --Jhortman 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Pietras1988's edit summary ("revert after fucking vandal. Please about ban for him") when removing Jhortman's warning was definitely uncivil and, IMHO, a personal attack. I would recommend a short-term block if further incidents occur as warnings do not seem to be terribly effective. --ElKevbo 19:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's also worthy of note that the user also blanked an NPA warning that ElKevbo put on his talk page with the edit summary "not important." (history) I'm seriously not trying to "go after" this guy or anything... it just seems to me like he's being pretty blatant. --Jhortman 06:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia-related disruption

Sysin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a hardline Greek nationalist with a history of POV-pushing and edit-warring, particularly concerning issues relating to the Republic of Macedonia, which is controversial in Greece. In recent weeks he's continued to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and push a nationalist POV by repeatedly deleting references to the country's name and recreating deleted templates, for which he has already been warned by myself and Andrwsc. The most recent episode has been edit-warring over Template:European Union Labelled Map, in which he has repeatedly deleted the spelled-out version of the acronym "FYROM" [35], even though it's already been explained that acronyms should be spelled out (as per WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations). He has done the same in Via Egnatia, replacing the country's name with the acronym FYROM.[36] I've seen this sort of thing before - it's a standard tactic among Greek ultranationalists who reject the country making any use of the word "Macedonia".

I'm not going to block Sysin myself since I've been trying (apparently without success) to explain our standards and guidelines, but given his persistent disuptive behaviour, edit warring and POV-pushing I believe a block for WP:POINT violations would be in order. I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could implement the block.

In the meantime, the issue of Macedonia-related terminology is under discussion in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). Comments would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

They've only done 8 edits in the last week; the FRYOM issue is clearly contentious, but the only other recent apparently controversial thing is a translation spelling issue on which they have some other editors agreeing with them. This doesn't look like it needs ANI intervention to me. Georgewilliamherbert 20:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth asking User:NikoSilver to have a word. Jkelly 20:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My response is already posted on the Talk page for the template.

1) [WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations]] clearly is intended for text and not on maps, where design and space considerations are critical. See Template:World Labelled Map and Template:United_States_Labelled_Map where the use of both acronyms and abbreviations is a high multiple of that in the tamplate in question. On clickable maps, a simple click or even a hover will quickly explain any acronym.

2) I have no political objection to spelling out "the former ..." as I often do so myself. I would, for example, object to anyone trying to fully spell out or footnote Luxembourg on the map, as it will crowd the map and ruin its design. In this case, the footnote that ChrisO wants to add appears like a label on the map (since it is placed where a label would normally be, and there is no other label to draw focus away from it). The map of the EU is then, at first look, labeled as a map of one country.

3) It is interesting that ChrisO only objects to the FYROM acronym, and not to other abbreviations on the map ("Lux.", "Neth."), which clearly demonstrates that he cares little about the MOS and this is just a lot of self-serving hand waving.

sys < in 09:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Australian Gov't IP?

Came across the following request for unblock for 58.169.25.55 (talk · contribs). The claim in the unblock request seems credible. Perhaps it should be switched to a soft block? Pastordavid 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does it appear this is going unnoticed? If this is really part of the Australian Government would we have to report that to The Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee quickly? The Australian government isn't on the government ip list. But we haven't bothered to put Australian government IPs there. Funpika 19:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It already is a soft (anon only) block, and the IP appears to be Telestra (a big generic ISP) rather than a government IP. There is no general need to pay special attention to government IPs anyway. The reason the US House and Senate IPs are listed is because of publicity surrounding negative editing of Congresscritters' bios by other Congresscritters' staffs. There are probably millions of government IPs that we don't make any special fuss over. Thatcher131 19:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Telstra is "a big generic IP" but is also majority owned by the Australian Government, and some employees there would still class themselves as working "for the government", but not in an equivalent sense to the US examples above. I'd concur that no special treatment is needed in this case (and I was the blocking admin). --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 22:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, that's why I posted it here - so that people who know more about these things than I do could give it the once over. Pastordavid 22:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Another account gone comprimized?

It has come to my attention that Kaori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing pages as though the account has been comprimized ("I have hacked Wikipedia..."). It has been blocked, but, what is happening? --24.136.230.38 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The password was reset and the account unbocked. Probably the new password was mailed to the user's registered e-mail address. Thatcher131 20:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

More spoiler nonsense

In this edit User:Doc glasgow blanked {{spoiler}} although it was speedy kept not deleted at a recent TfD, and there is now a general discussing on the sue of spoilers at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning Blanking this template (which is protected) before consensus on the use or non-use of spoilers is achieved seems little short of vandalism, particularly given the many pages thus affected. i have reverted. DES ^(talk) 21:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but whatever happened to assuming good faith? I, for one, think Doc's edit, which he explains on the talk page as temporary, is a good idea because it will prevent fighting over it in article space. You, however, have misused the rollback tool, and your "speedy kept" at tfd comment is a falsehood; the debate was postponed because of the rfc. Picaroon (Talk) 21:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I speedily closed the TFD to centralize discussion. That was not a "keep" decision, but a "debate elswehere" decision. Kusma (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain. and DES should have considered discussion before he machine reverted me as a vandal and accused me of bad faith. The MfD/RfC demonstrates that there is currently no consensus for the policy of using {spoiler}. Indeed there is probably an outright majority against it. Despite that removing these templates even from articles like Mary Poppins can been reverted claiming their is a 'standard policy'. There is evidently no such thing - there is no consensus. I blanked the template as a temporary measure until policy is clarified. If there is shown to be a consensus for the use of such things (which I think is hightly unlikely) then fair enough. But don't let these unencyclopedic things stand without consensus.--Doc^g 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This does seem rather odd. Perhaps I'm not in full possession of the facts, but it seems to me that yesterday there was a spirited debate about this in the form of an MfD, which was finally closed because this was not the place to discuss policy, and not because a clear consensus was reached. Today, the template is suddenly blanked. It is protected, so only administrators can participate in this game. But the reason given "I am blanking this temoplate. The MfD/RfC on the policy page, shows there is no consensus for its use. Rather then delete it, I shall blank it until consensus for its use is arrived at" seems odd. Is this the norm: to delete things while there is no consensus for its use? Since equally, there is no consensus for changing things, and no consensus for removal. I don't care about the template particularly, but I don't really like to see what seems to be a fait accompli victory for one particular "side" in a debate that wasn't concluded. The use of adminstrative powers in this dispute does seem to raise it above a content dispute; the admistrator involved doesn't seem to be a disinterested party, seeming to have strong views in the debate. If this is considered to be proper, then at least be tidy and blank the end-spoiler template too. Notinasnaid 21:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The template was long-time protected to prevent against vandalism. There is nothing to stop an admin editing it. It was not protected due to any dispute. So the use of admin tools is not relevant. The point is that people are enforcing the use of this template on classic fictional works without any consensus and making the encyclopedia look ridiculous. I took the view that given the lack of consensus for its use - I would remove pending further discussion. Unfortunately, DES rather than discuss with me assumed bad faith, used his vandal rollback, and engaged in personal attacks. But there you go.--Doc^g 21:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is, in fact, a dispute going on -- the reverts yesterday on both the template and many pages that use it make that painfully clear. if the page had not been previously protected due to vandalism, particularly because it is a high-usage template, it would surely have been protected yesterday because of the current dispute. Since you have been quite active in expressing your views in the dispute, and at least somewhat active in disputed edits over the placement of spoiler tags, i knew perfectly well that you knew about the dispute. Editing with the summary "improving the encyclopedia" does not sound like something intended to be a "temporary" change. I ask again, why the rush to judgment? If you are convinced that consensus is against the use of spoiler tags, why not wait a week or two and see what develops from the discussion now at hand? Do you really claim that blanking a widely used template, that is at the center of a large ongoing dispute, without waiting for consensus to form one way or the other is editing in good faith? I note that you blanked it again and were reverted by another editor. It appears that I am not alone in thinking that this is an unwise edit at this time. DES ^(talk) 21:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And the wisdom of my action is a matter for discussion, not assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. I am happy to be though wrongheaded - but I'm not happy to be insulted. AS for my second revert - I reverted you - since you had had the discourtesy to use a vandalism rollback tool without explanation. When another editor disagreed and reverted - I let the revert stand. Discussion continues. But refusing to assume good faith, using personal attacks and then bringing the dispute here is not the way to go.--Doc^g 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• My memory was mistaken about how the TfD result was expressed, i apologize for that error. While it is probably true that there is currently no consensus, certainly no clear consensus, for the continued use of the spoiler templates as they have been sued for several years, There is equally certainly no clear consensus not to use them at all. Given all this, I do not see how blanking a widely used protected template with the edit summary of "improving the encyclopedia" can be seen as anything but an action taken against the previous consensus, without waiting for a new consensus to form, which is not how I thought good-faith edits to the project were supposed to be conducted. What is the rush? why not wait until there is some sort of resolution to the discussions now in progress? DES ^(talk) 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oedipus kills his father and marries his mother; Sydney Carton dies; Frodo lives, and the Rhinemaidens swim off with ring. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed's wife commits suicide while awaiting trial for the murder of her boss (who was actually killed by Ed in self-defense). After the road-head scene, Ed is arrested for the murder of the dry-cleaning pansy (who was actually killed by Ed's wife's boss in retribution for the $10,000 blackmail, which was actually committed by Ed). Ed dies. —freak(talk) 02:18, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

And Little Bo Peep lost her sheep. Quick, add the spoiler tags! Picaroon (Talk) 02:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And Timmy fell down a well! —freak(talk) 04:55, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

User:68.194.0.108

Resolved

 – Reported to AIV. Funpika 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The IP has vandalized List of Backyard Kids even after a final warning was given. Deletion Quality 22:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC) :He did not vandalize after a warning. You didn't even bother to tell him the consequences of vandalizing. Funpika 22:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops looking at wrong ip. Funpika 22:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep the ip you mentioned DID vandalize after final warning, unlike the one that I mistook for the one you reported. This seems better on WP:AIV. Funpika 22:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Review request

Can someone who knows the free and open source software industry take a look at the contributions of 74.116.118.230 (talk · contribs) since 21:35 UTC (the edit to Bill Kristol adminst four edits to Leonard H. Tower Jr.. He made a bunch of changes, many of which were reverted by User:Lentower. He then edited Leonard H. Tower Jr. (yes, the editor is the subject of the article) that violated BLP. I saw this in my watchlist, rolled it back, and looked at the rest of the IPs contribs from today, and rolled them back as they were changing references and links consistently in a way that changed the meaning. I cautioned on the IP talk page (though not about the BLP issue), and they went away for an hour. I came back, and saw the BLP violating edit to Leonard H. Tower Jr. had been repeated. So I've rolled that back again. But are the rest of the edits good or vandalism now? Beyond my expertise, so I request review (and a block if appropriate). Since I am a personal friend of Len's since well before Wikipedia existed, I shouldn't be the blocker even if the BLP violations alone merit one. GRBerry 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Realizing news sources would be unlikely to print the "K word" in reporting the incident, I did watch a video of the heckling, and I did not see or hear anything to corroborate the assertion that Kristol was called a "dirty kike", unless of course it had been muted out as profanity. However, he was clearly called a traitor and equated to Goebbels by various spectators. Good revert. —freak(talk) 01:54, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

The software-related edits are mostly POV-pushing, changing "free software" to "open source" and then in some instances revert warring over it. There is some inflammatory political stuff too, at Rupert Murdoch and Neoconservatism. Almost all the edits are small (1 or 2 word) injections of POV terminology rather than anything substantial; for the Rupert Murdoch article, a few-word-long unsourced allegation is added ([37] not supported by the cited article). Bad user and possible troll. 75.62.6.237 07:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing by BillDeanCarter and WhiteKongMan

Hi, I would like an administrator to look into possible violations of WP:CANVASS by BillDeanCarter and User:WhiteKongMan:WhiteKongMan, in the recent Bill Monahan Writing's Debate.

BillDeanCarter left the following message:

"(username), would you mind chiming in with a Keep again? This list unfortunately 9 days later has been renominated for deletion.-BillDeanCarter 22:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)"

He left this message on the talk pages of all users who had voted KEEP in the first debate:

The messages can be found at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

Soon after, WhiteKongMan left the following message on the talk pages of user who voted to delete in the first debate:

"Hey, this stupid list is up for deletion again. As someone who voted on this issue previously, please feel free to express your opinion again. Also, billdeancarter has taken the liberty of notifying those who voted to keep in the first debate, so I am doing this to be fair. WhiteKongMan 13:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)"

He did this on the following pages; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.

I'm not sure if either necessarily violated the canvassing policy, but I think its important that Admins be made aware of it.

Thanks, Black Harry (T|C) 23:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You accuse others of canvassing... yet the top of your user page contains canvassing... Matthew 23:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that canvassing is when one contacts others repeatedly. What Black Harry has on the top of his user page is not canvassing, but is still somewhat inappropriate—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just removed it, thanks for reminding me Black Harry (T|C) 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Newbie biting by JSpung (talk · contribs)

I'm a bit concerned with JSpung's vandal fighting technique. He seems to be giving level 4im and uw-bv warnings for every instance of vandalism he reverts lately. I left him a message on his talk page about this, but it was removed with no comment. [38]. He does not seem to make much distinction between clearly bad-faith vandalism and assumed-good-faith test edits. He reverted this (the anon's only 2 edits) on Declaration of independence and gave the user a uw-bv warning. While most of his warnings are fine, I'm concerned about his ability to WP:AGF and not WP:BITE. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that JSpung is a newbie himself, but a closer look at his contributions makes it bloody obvious: it's not his first rodeo. —freak(talk) 00:31, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath revert warring in Angeles City

RodentofDeath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) repeatedly deletes a well-annotated sentence on prostitution on Angeles City, typically with misleading edit summaries. [39] [40] [41] [42]

He's been warned about various incivility and 3RR-type behaviors in the recent past and has now advanced to disputing pretty much every source on the Talk page [43] [44] [45], then removing without consensus. Discussion has become lengthy, and I don't think further discussion will be productive as he removes the material regardless.

Other new, single-issue editors have joined in the deletion. Rodent came up clean in a recent SockPuppetry investigation, so I can't say with certainty these are him. [46] [47]

• 208.52.112.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 67.141.228.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Rodent has been on related campaigns of article reversion and harassment toward editors. The Angeles City article was protected for a while due to revert warring between RodentofDeath and Susanbryce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) over references to slums, and references to Welfare organizations and human rights monitors.[48] Rodent's general campaign has been to remove anything perceived as unflattering.

I've considered mediation but I have trouble believing any good will come of it. Ditto RfC. I'm not sure where to go with this. What is recommended? / edgarde 00:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've been watching this particular case with some interest. From what I understand, the issue is essentially more of a POV dispute between two parties who, like it or not, have strong biases on the topic (take note of the lengthy discourse on Susanbryce's main user page). If you ask me, this isn't exactly a one-sided issue; both Rodentofdeath and Susanbryce have their fair share of conflicting issues and concerns that badly needs to be resolved. I'd also suggest that you leave a note at the Philippine regional noticeboard (talk page) so that other Filipino editors can also share their thoughts about this (some of the regulars are also admins, btw) and better explain why this could be a POV issue. And, yes, I think mediation is long overdue. --- Tito Pao 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about Philippine regional noticeboard, and it sounds like a good resource. Thanks.

Susanbryce may have dropped out by now. If I get a reply to the mediation suggestion I left on User talk:Susanbryce, I'd be pleased to see a mediation begin.

What I'm seeing now is RodentofDeath is the last one standing and has taken an obstreperous WP:OWNership of the page. I got involved fairly late, and am mostly in it for this one edit. / edgarde 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a longer version of this incident in WP:TAMBAY. / edgarde 04:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with comments by edgarde, what's happened is that RodentofDeath has pushed out neutral editors such as Phaedrus86 and from there has attempted to own the article. Addhoc 08:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I started adding the content on welfare orgaizations in the Philippines and the Human Trafficking trade due to my experience in these aseas. Im not an educated person, and I made a lot of mistakes in what I posted. But with the help and guidence of more experienced Editors such as Phaedrus86 and Adhoc, the artilces have been well sourced, well written and a valuable addition. I have always abided by the advice of the more experienced Editors. I feel im being stalked by RodentofDeath who has attacked and deleted most everything I have posted. Even a simple post that mentions charities is attacked and deleted. I have requested more senior editors to engage and they have and I have abided by their guidence. I have dropped off because im tired of the constant abuse RodentofDeath aims at me. With that said, ive mostly made the additions to Wikipedia that I wanted to and am basically happy with the current articles as they are. All im seeking now is to maintain those articles. Kind Regards, Susan Bryce.Susanbryce 15:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Heatedissuepuppet

I am concerned that User:Heatedissuepuppet has been unblocked by User:Viridae. The user was originally blocked for disruption by User:JzG after this original request [49], who said:

Your username and behaviour make it abundantly clear that this is a single-purpose account, almost certainly operated by an experienced editor, set up and operated for the sole purpose of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I have blocked this account. A sample review did not turn up a single productive edit, and your edit warring over the closure of a frivolous merger proposal was the final straw.

The user admits he 1. created the accout to deliberately target User:Sparkzilla and has used the account for extended editwarring over trivial issues, such as the length of time a merge discussion was open, and not allowing such discussions to be closed. He has created a "heated issue" where there was none and has not made a single constructive edit to the pages.

Details of the block are at User Talk:Heatedissuepuppet

Why, when there is a consensus to keep blocked (two admins and myself oppose this unblock) should a disruptive user such as this be unblocked? I would like more advice and opinions on this situation. Sparkzilla 00:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The first step is usually to ask the person in question themselves. Any reason why you haven't spoken to Viridae first? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when did merging a frigging article become so bureaucratic? If in doubt, an article remains un-merged. That having been said, if a user is being disruptive, block him for that (and of course, block him indefinitely IFF there is evidence his other account is still active and being advantageously used in the same foray). —freak(talk) 01:05, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Firstly I wasn't aware of the previous discussion. Secondly, per WP:SOCK a sockpuppet account may legitimately be used to deal with heated issues to stop them affecting the persons main account. Yes, there was edit warring, but the block reason is not in my opinion legitimate, because the sockpuppet was created under a legitimate policy quite obviously for the purposes of seperating normal issues from those which may erupt, as shown here. Yes, he has been edit warring (and issue I haven't really looked into very deeply, mainly because it wasn't denied) but as such he had both accounts blocked (block and autoblock) for 2-3 days - which is a fairly normal cool off time in the case of a first block for something like edit warring. I asked the user to email me with the name of his other account, and I have verified that the other account is not being used for the purpose of edit warring - or for that matter interaction on any of the articles/issues that the heatedissuepuppet account has been used for. Summing up I am now confidant that this is a legitimate use of a sockpuppet account (provided he doesn't continue to edit war with it) and time served is sufficient punishment/cooling off for the edit warring offence. Viridae^Talk 02:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Also see User talk:Heatedissuepuppet and User talk:JzG (where I notified Guy, the blocking admin, of my unblock). Viridae^Talk 02:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the account is clearly labeled for what it is, and since you've confirmed that he's not making abusive use of multiple accounts, and since his disclosure to you makes it significantly less tempting for him to do so in the future, I'd say there's nothing left to see here, folks. —freak(talk) 02:25, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

This is what it says at WP:SOCK#Keeping_heated_issues_in_one_small_area

Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article.

In other words sockpuppets can be used, in some cases, to protect a user's identity. This is not the case here. This editor is not using the account to protect himself from attack, but using it to attack. Sparkzilla 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

When delving into a heated issue or one that may become heated it may be preferable to use an account such as this to stop disputes spilling into your other editing, and I believe this is what is happening here. It is unusual, sure but per that policy I believe it is allowed. Viridae^Talk 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think you have the right to unblock when two other admins and myself do not think the account should be unblocked. There is no consensus to unblock, so the account should stay blocked until such a consensus is reached. Sparkzilla 04:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well for a start, I was (as previously stated) not aware of the other discussion, I merely answered an unblock request. Secondly the unblock occurred BEFORE this most recent discussion, in which several people have supported the user being blocked and at least one apart from myself have supported the unblocking. As such there is no way he could remain blocked untill consensus in this discussion was reached because this discussion didnt start untill after he was unblocked. Might I add that I unblocked him after careful consideration of WP:SOCK and the contributions from both accounts. Even if the consensus reached is for that account to be reblocked, as it was a good faith account - ie made in line with policy (or he believed so) autoblock should NOT be enabled, to allow him to edit from his other account in peace. Viridae^Talk 04:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the content dispute, but I do not think that this is the proper use of a second account. They are not intended to allow an user to edit war and keep there original account clean. To me this is abusing a sockpuppet account because it gives the users an advantage over other users that must settle their disputes using our dispute resolution process. I have commented about this to Heatedissuepuppet and asked him not to use the account. FloNight 03:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I second FloNight's opinion and actions. Which is Heatedissuepuppet's main user account, by the way? Cla68 04:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

He asked me not to reveal that, so I won't. You can either ask him yourself or ask for a checkuser - but given the nature of the account (ie an account to keep heated issues away from his main account) I am biding by his request for me to not reveal the other account name. Viridae^Talk 04:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What's your mother's maiden name? —freak(talk) 04:16, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with using an account to keep heated issues away from the main account then you had better propose a change to policy on WP:VPP. If you don't like the use of an account like this in such a manner, I believe he has learnt his lesson - heated subjects occasionally bring editors into arguments which result in eit warring. They usually get blocked for a short amount of time to cool down - and since this is exactly what has happened in the long run (ie he was unblocked after 2-3 days) I believe that that time served is enough, provided he doesn't repeat the offence of edit warring. Viridae^Talk 04:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sure I am not alone in thinking that it is very poor form to unblock a user without looking at the original dispute and user history first. Problems with this user are outlined here: User Talk:Heatedissuepuppet#User_behaviour

If the user has been involved in any previous edit conflict with me, and is using the account to hide that fact in these disputes, then I do not think that is a fair use of this puppet. If he has not been involved in any edit conflict with me before then perhaps the use of a puppet is reasonable. Could you confirm this?

I can accept that his primary account be unblocked, but I would like to ask that this user does not use the puppet account to try to deliberately target and disrupt any page on which I have posted in future. Sparkzilla 04:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If by "target and disrupt" you mean "make any edits to", it would help to remember that you don't OWN your contributions, or any pages for that matter. That may need reminding, given the rather narrow scope of your edits.

As for confirming or denying that it is a user with whom you have previously interacted, a decision by Viridae (or a checkuser-er) to do that (and only that, for now) would probably benefit everyone involved. —freak(talk) 04:50, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

My history makes it clear that I am happy to work with any editor that does not make frivolous and timewasting edits with the intent to disrupt. I don't really know much about the checkuser process -- can you help? Sparkzilla 04:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. On the other hand, it could just as easily get shot down as fishing expedition. —freak(talk) 05:01, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fair enough to say that if the user has already been in conflict with me that he has no need to use such a puppet. Perhaps Viridae could enlighten us? Note, I am not interested in finding out the user's main account. Sparkzilla 05:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the contributions of the main account back to july last year and see no evidence of interaction/dispute. Viridae^Talk 05:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In perusing his contributions, forgive me if I've overlooked an egregious violation, but I did not see where he has attacked anyone. I don't know his other identity, obviously, but it could be that account was registered under his real name, or could easily be traced to his real identity by anyone wishing to do so. As far as I can tell, nobody would have pegged him as an "alternate account" if he didn't volunteer that fact himself, specifically by choosing a name containing the word "puppet" (which, in itself, would severely limit the owner's temptation to use it for vote-stacking or tag team reversions, I would think!). If he had been doing anything untoward, I doubt he would have revealed himself to Viridae. —freak(talk) 04:16, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)

I second freak's comment - I can't find any evidence of a so-called attack. In fact user Heatedissuepuppet has been a model of civility, even during edits in which the same courtesy was not reciprocated. David Lyons 06:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• A single-purpose account registered solely in order to argue on contentious articles, in fact mainly to pursue an agenda against a single publication and a single editor (Sparkzilla). I don't see that as one of the permitted uses of puppet accounts myself. It's not about containig contributions to a contentious area, it's about limiting the damage an edit war and transparent vendetta would do to his main account. Would have been nice to be consulted in some respect before my block was undone, too. Do we really need single purpose accounts that exist solely to pursue an agenda? Guy (Help!) 07:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"To pursue an agenda"... I have a perfectly good reason for that "agenda". Most people have a reason for getting involved in a specific article/conflict - may it be to counter off-site canvassing which is damaging an article, or the obvious bias of another editor - "to pursue an agenda" is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as there are good reasons for that agenda to be pursued. A legitimate use of a "heated issue puppet" will most likely end up being a SPA, with ONE agenda - but how is that not in accordance with the policy on the matter?

I have evidence that I think will satisfy most that Sparkzilla IS Mark Devlin (the owner of disputed company/magazine). My purpose has only been to make sure that Wikipedia is not used as a vehicle for promotion for his company/magazine, which it currently is, I'm afraid to say. As Viridae can vouch for, I have not previously been involved in any conflict with Sparkzilla, so calling it a "vendetta" is obviously untrue. I have only strived for the upholding of Wikipedia rules and for that purpose, I created an alternative account. I'm certain most will agree with me when I've posted about this problem at the WP:CoI noticeboard, and I'm also certain nobody will refer to any of my edits as disruptive. I do however understand that those who haven't looked into the conflict and just hear these allegations of "edit warring" might doubt my motives. That said, I'd also like to point out that any edit-warring from my side has been extremely small-scale and limited, and has practically always ended with me being reverted by sparkzilla one time too much, resulting in me letting it be. I've kept well within the boundaries of what's allowed on Wikipedia, and I've avoided resorting to any incivility, which David Lyons and others can vouch for (unfortunately, the same is not true of Sparkzilla, see my talk page, below the unblock request, for links). I will try and post on CoI today, but before that, I am prepared to share my evidence with anybody interested through e-mail.Heatedissuepuppet 08:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I'm not about to revert any of Sparkzilla's edits to the disputed articles (something I haven't done since 3 May, if I'm not mistaken - those who accuse me of "abusing" this account, please look into mine as well as Sparkzilla's edit histories), so don't worry, I'm not about to engage in any edit wars of any kind. I'm just gonna re-post my comments on the Nick Baker RfD (removed from there by Sparkzilla, without any support in actual policies/guidelines), and post a CoI later on today. Heatedissuepuppet 09:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty clear from the above statement that this editor is using his SPA as a way to to attack me. If he was really interested in improving articles he would find proper sources and not indulging in editwarring, trivial reverts and posting of poorly-sourced negative information. The addition of this threatened CoI proves that the editor is only interested in further harassment. I ask for the block to be reinstated. Sparkzilla 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are innocent of CoI, you don't have anything to worry about. If you indeed are innocent, I don't see why it would be harassment to have it investigated at the CoI noticeboard. Heatedissuepuppet 09:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Using CoI as a way to influence content disputes is not allowed. CoI clearly states "attack the article, not the editor". You simply did not have good enough sources for inclusion. It is incredible that you are being allowed to continue your harassment, when you have made no positive contributions with this account at all. Sparkzilla 09:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to accuse me of "harassment", please provide "diff links" sustaining these allegations. Heatedissuepuppet 09:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You are sock puppet with the single purpose of demonstrating that Sparkzilla has an undeclared conflict of interest. Could I politely suggest you present your evidence on the COI noticeboard instead of continuing this debate. Addhoc 09:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, what kind of a comment is that? That's exactly what I've suggested I will do, but I do not see why I shouldn't have the right to respond to unsustained accusations by Sparkzilla?Heatedissuepuppet 09:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this is not a "sock puppet account with the single purpose of demonstrating Sparkzilla has an undeclared CoI", it's a sock puppet account with the single purpose of making sure Wikipedia isn't used as a vehicle for promotion. I did not originally strive to "demonstrate" that Sparkzilla had a CoI (even though I did ask him once, politely, if he were Mark Devlin or a close associate of his), but rather to deal with the problematic nature of the Metropolis/Crisscross articles. The way things have escalated (esp my indef block), I doubt that there's anything I can do about the situation but go to CoI. That's why my "single purpose" now is to demonstrate Sparkzilla's undeclared CoI. Heatedissuepuppet 10:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary of your actions so far: User_talk:Heatedissuepuppet#User_behaviour. I will not respond further to you here. As they say, don't feed the trolls. Sparkzilla 09:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no involvement or interest in the dispute between Sparkzilla and Heatedissuepuppet. But I do believe that the use to which the Heatedissuepuppet identity has been put is clearly legitimate and within policy. In fact, it is explicitly within policy. I also find it somewhat disingenuous that Sparkzilla writes with such outrage about being attacked, given how hard he is working to have the block reimposed. It is clear to me that the attacking in this situation is at the very least mutual. FNMF 11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy does not give an user the right to a second account to edit war with another user and keep their main account clean. That is exactly what is happening here. FloNight 11:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not know the full extent of my reasoning behind the decision to use an alternative account, so I think the categorization you just made is really unfair. If you saw my main account, you'd see I'm not afraid to "dirty" my talkpage with long-winded protests from disruptive users. One thing I am prepared to divulge about my reasoning, is that it is FRIGHTENINGLY easy to find out my real name if you know my main account. I've recently had problems because of this, but it is related to an incident I cannot describe further as it would reveal too much about my identity.

Finally, I think it's worth mentioning that I've had an account on Wikipedia for almost 2 years and this is the one and only time I've decided to use an alt. Heatedissuepuppet 11:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

First, if your real name is trivially identifiable and you'd rather it were not, then consider changing WP:RENAME or dropping it altogether. Second, if you want to use an alt in certain subject areas it's probably best if you don't start by being gratuitously contentious and pursuing a battle with another editor, because as FloNight (an arbitrator, in case you hadn't spotted) notes above, there is no right to use multiple accounts, and they are only permitted (in the sense of not being blocked on sight) where their use is not disruptive; avoiding scrutiny seems to be your main aim here and that is not listed in the permitted uses, nor is wikilawyering about the permitted uses a good way forward. This use has been seen by several people ad disruptive. It is expected that any user will have a balance of edits, not just pursuing an agenda. Accounts which do nothing but pursue an agenda tend to get kicked off, sooner or later, whether they are alternate or sole accounts. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Note the sad irony of an editor who doesn't want his identity revealed, desperately trying to reveal that of another editor. BTW, what is Wikipedia policy regarding HIP's attempts to expose a user's identity? Sparkzilla

I'll note that I also see use of a secondary account for areas known to be in dispute to be explicitly authorized by Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts, provided the primary account does not edit in those areas. Viridae's actions of confirming the primary account to not be active in the same area(s) is correct action. So sockpuppetry is not a basis for a block here anymore. Edit warring itself is a separate problem, and I think (from comments here) that both Sparkzilla and Heateddissuepuppet are engaging in this type of problematic behavior, and I think either or both of them could end up with sanctions if they don't start working better together. GRBerry 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing or not?

I just want to inject a little common sense here. Can we stop focussing on the legitimate vs. illegitimate use of an alternate account here? It seems like if this account is being disruptive, it's an illegitimate use and it should be blocked indefinitely. If the account is not being disruptive, then it seems like the use must be legitimate per the WP:SOCK policy. Yet, there has been very little examination here of whether Heatedissuepuppet's behavior is disruptive, or merely involved in a controversial issue. Can we focus on that a bit more? Mangojuice^talk 14:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur, and I'll pre-emptively defend the action which JzG, in blocking me, characterized as "edit warring over the closure of a frivolous merger proposal [which] was the final straw". What actually happened? 2 votes against the merger, 1 saying "perhaps unnecessary", and 1 for. Sparkzilla, who opposed the merger, chose to call this a "clear consensus" and closed it after 4 days of silence. I strongly disagree that 2-1-1 is in any way a "clear consensus", and it vexed me that Sparkzilla had closed it prematurely - WP:MERGE states that at least 10 days of silence should be observed before closing a merger vote if there's no clear consensus (also, I was waiting for responses from other editors). What "disruptive action" did I then take? On the Crisscross talk page, I put strike code over Sparkzilla's "No merge" and posted "No consensus" below[50]. Next I replied to Sparkzilla's protest and removal of strike code (I did not put it back): [51],. On the Metropolis talkpage, I changed the tag Sparkzilla had put up to "No consensus"[52]. Sparkzilla and I reverted each other's edits twice each and then I was blocked indefinately by JzG.

Did I revert the removal of the Merger-tags on the actual articles? No. Did I attempt to "un-archive" Sparkzilla's archiving, or did I try and open a new merger proposal? No and no. I just wanted to point out that there hadn't been a clear consensus at the time of closing. Heatedissuepuppet 20:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the "frivolous adding of notability tags to Metropolis and Crisscross articles" (as Sparkzilla refers to it on my talkpage), all the tags are gone now, who do you think removed them? A hint, it was one person and one alone. People posting similar tags on these pages have on the other hand been plentiful, for example User:Dekimasu [53] and User:SebastianHelm [54] (I'll post many more in the CoI tomorrow). Btw, who do you think is the most "disruptive"? An editor who posts quality-related tags on articles, or an editor who removes said tags, without posting on the talk page and without any attempt to address any of the problems the tag was there to draw attention to?Heatedissuepuppet 20:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User Batman2005 Ad hominem attacks and uncivil behavor

In the discussion page for "Freddy Adu" Batman2005 started off with Ad hominem attacks, saying that I would be uncivil(which was baseless) To the contrary he had multiple posts which consisted purely of trying to create arguments where there were none, posts that were purely ad-hominem attacks, and posts that contained ad-hominem attacks.

Looking through his history, I see I'm not the first to have this problem with him. Drsmoo 05:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, Drsmoo pushed his pov upon the page in question on several occasions. Including a failed attempt to label me and another user sockpuppets of each other. Only when presented with an overwhelming majority against him did he relent on his position, then he attempted (against wikipedia policy) to delete portions of the talk page which would skew the discussion into his favor. Repeatedly this was reverted and repeatedly he continued to do so. As well, Drsmoo removed on several occasions (against wikipedia policy) talk page discussions on his user talk page. Lets also take a look at Drsmoo, who accuses me of ad-hominem attacks, clearly attacking me [55].

Looking through his edit history, I see that this is not the first time he's pushed pov and acted against policy by removing information. I find overwhelming irony in the uncivil calling others uncivl.

As of now, I'm going to consider my affiliation with Drsmoo over, yet will continue to revert pov edits, even if they be by him. Batman2005 05:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Note, Drsmoo violated 3RR on Freddy Adu on the 14th. 1 2 3 4 --Selket ^Talk 05:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that, yet chose to start a talk page discussion about the content, rather than reporting the violation. Batman2005 05:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oy vey, if anyone actually looks at the discussion they'll see that I agreed it was POV from the start. I have ABSOLUTELY no idea what this guy is getting at. There was absolutely no argument between him and me in that regard. However he decided there was and insulted me as if it were a fight. I welcome admins to look through my history and see that I have never acted uncivil. If you look through Batman2005s history(for example in the Freddy Adu discussion) you will see that he was the only one resorting to Ad-Hominem attacks. Drsmoo 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous. Batman2005 05:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you guys have any real problem. I don't see anything really incivil going on there, and it looks like you've agreed about what needs to be done. Bringing it here is just adding to the problem. I think the best idea is just to walk away. --Haemo 05:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Note my above post where I said that I was going to consider the situation over, yet he then chose to insult me on the talk page. Just another in a long line of policy violations by Drsmoo. Batman2005 05:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not exactly "letting it go". --Haemo 05:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, it'd be better to let it go. But I also think it's important to let other editors know that he has a history of Ad-hominem attacks

The event was insigated by Batman2005 when he posted on my discussion board that "I don't expect you to be able to maintain a civil or constructive discussion on the issue, but as a courtesy...I wanted to mention that such a discussion has been started."

His first message on the board then included "..yet if those were added Drsmoo would delete them immediately and claim I was pushing my pov. I have pushed NO pov in my edits...I have merely acted to eliminate the pov from the existing article. I highly doubt that Drsmoo will engage in any legitimate or constructive discussion here, so perhaps others will have opinions as we work towards a consensus and not just Drsmoo's way or the highway." which was wrong as I was pushing more towards removing POV than anyone else, he continued with comments such as...

"But, you're probably totally unwilling to look at anything Adu related objectively" "And no, I didn't insult you...apparently I was exactly right. You've proven yourself both unable to hold a civil discussion and/or accept anothers viewpoint. There is overwhelming support here for my viewpoint that saying that he is widely regarded as anything is pov. Why can't you just admit you were wrong and get over yourself?" "Shouldn't you be off pushing your pov on other pages and being proven wrong over and over again like you were here?"

"I fail to see Drsmoo, perhaps you can let me borrow the rose-colored glasses you wear."

There was absolutely no reason other than blatant and causeless hostility to be insulting.

That's my last post on the matter, just wanted to let other editors know. Drsmoo 05:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And my last post will be to let the same editors know of the blatant pov pushing, callous disregard for wikipedia policy and hypocritical ways of Drsmoo. Batman2005 06:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but this doesn't really seem to be ANI material. Can you two agree to stop this? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Wikipedia?

I found a site that plagerized directly from wikipedias content and did not give credit. they make people pay to be members also. http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/charis-visionsof-mary.html They are way of life ministries a baptist org.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.48.243.177 (talk • contribs) 05:45, May 17, 2007 (UTC)

You should mention this at the talk page of Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, but it's not really an admin issue. ugen64 07:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is OK under GDFL . --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look that way to me. GFDL requires crediting the original source and also distributing the copied version under the GFDL. That site is not crediting Wikipedia and is trying to impose a different set of conditions. 75.62.6.237 08:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I would take this over to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, but I can't see which content is being taken from Wikipedia, and which Wikipedia page it's being taken from. ··coelacan 08:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Wasn't sure if this is a copyvio or not. The picture is found on a [copyrighted website. --CyclePat 08:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, on both links it says the image is Public Domain. Anynobody 09:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Questionable page protection?

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name was, admittedly, a contentious and confusing nomination, not the least of which was its process-questionable dual-nomination in both MFD and AFD. However, we've certainly had more problematic XFDs in the past; Esperanza comes immediately to mind.

Without passing judgment on whether or not consensus could have been established in either direction, I question the way the discussion was concluded. Discussion was "suspended", and the MFD page protected, by admin Jerzy.[56][57] However, Jerzy was not an "uninvolved administrator". He had previously commented in the discussion, favoring the retention of the material.[58] Additionally, his justification for the suspension seems somewhat lacking, stating that it "involves procedural irregularities too extensive to either tolerate in light of their potential for functioning as de facto precedents, or enumerate clearly in the time i have left to edit in the next 24 hours or so." Although he has suggested that other participants "Please keep the discussion of these measures on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name", he has not done so himself[59] (he is the only contributor to that page as of the linked version).

I don't know that I expected anything at all from this A/MFD, but I can't say I expected it to end this way, especially with such vage explanation. Was this a proper use of administrative tools? And, either way, what course of action should be undertaken to allow examination of the arguments for and against deleting this material?

Regards, Serpent's Choice 09:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have over-ruled the suspension and unprotected the page. See my enclosed comment for detail. Thanks. El_C 10:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Game (game) (again)

Please see Wikipedia: How to play The Game (game) and get your article back - it appears to have been created as a WP:POINT, and I also notice that the creator is threatening to try and take this to arbitration.

Shouldn't this be nuked rather than taken to miscellany for deletion?? --SunStar Net ^talk 10:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Been deleted by JzG. Trebor 11:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, gentlemen, I deleted The Game (game) meme a while back as trolling along the same lines, seems to be a similar sort of scenario. Moreschi ^Talk 11:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• SunStar Net suggested a page Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests - that seemed a very good idea to me so I was bold. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:S.jensen

Can somebody with enough fuel in their flamethrowers please help to deal with the walled garden of copyviovanicrankspamcruft that is apparently the complete oeuvre of S.jensen (talk · contribs), regarding one Martinus Thomsen and his numerous books on mysticism? Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Third Testament for precedent. I haven't yet worked out just how much of it can be speedied. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see anything eligible for speedy deletion, but I did isuse a delete all opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual science by Martinus which you opened. I think the 5 articles in the AFD nom plus the 14 redirects are all the non-deleted pages to which the user has contributed. GRBerry 14:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations

Addhoc Have been accusing his fellow editors of supporting/condoning pedophilia. These accusations are unfounded and a clear violation of policy. I have tried to contact him about it: [60] But he refused to remove his accusation. I hope some action is taken against this behavior. Thanks.

His accusations: [61] [62]

V.☢.B 12:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I find this quite concerning. Unless Addhoc can show actual evidence of this extraordinary claim, that the editors he disagrees with support/condone pedophilia, then this is not just a personal attack but an open-and-shut WP:BLP violation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've notified Addhoc (talk · contribs) that this discussion is taking place. MastCell ^Talk 15:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell. My original phrasing was 'support', which I changed to 'condone'. I'll rephrase to 'defend' or similar if this is considered a problem. Addhoc 16:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a major problem to accuse other editors of supporting/condoning/defending pedophilia, remove any such accusations. If you don't then I strongly urge that a administrator does and block the user at the same time. It will not lead to anything good if such behavior is accepted to roam free. Thanks. V.☢.B 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Jim Burton's user page, I would suggest that he condones or defends pedophilia. His posts to Jimbo's talk page appear to support this view. Possibly, I should rephrase slightly, however I don't think blanking this entire section of an open RfC would be a good idea. Addhoc 17:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at that user page I don't think drawing the conclusion that he condones or defends paedophilia is exactly unfounded, it may not be proven, it may not be wise, but there is certainly some suggestive material there. --Coroebus 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Since it is also directed against me I find it very disturbing and very wrong. I don't see how any such accusation can cause anything but problems. I want the accusation to be removed, the other text can remain ofcourse. V.☢.B 17:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Five other editors supported Addhoc's original statement which I think sums up the situation very well. Voice of Britain is under his own Rfc [[63]]. Lots of SPAS's are strongly pushing a pro paedophile view ont he relevant articles as can be seen by their edits so I think Addhoc's comments should be allowed to stand and any apparently pro paedophile SPA editors should be closely watched, SqueakBox 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

False accusations should be removed, there is nothing to discuss unless someone has clear evidence that the accusations are true. V.☢.B 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a comment from one of the accused users on a talk page in which he states that 50% of victims of child sexual abuse have positive or neutral responses to the abuse [64]. --Dcooper 18:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

False accusations should indeed be removed, and I dont think that applies here, Dcooper's is one of a number of similar edits, SqueakBox 18:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's from a peer reviewed study, its not opinion but a result from an examination of 59 studies. Seems no administrator is willing to interfer with accusations of this kind. It's a sad fact because once you allow such behavior, it will continue, and so will the disputes. Enough said. V.☢.B 19:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrators look here! Enough discussion. Take action, one way or another. I just want clarity if the accusations are acceptable or not. V.☢.B 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Also see a related issue posted below, #Fraudster. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User 210.56.112.80 Vandalism

Whilst on my WP travels I have discovered that user 210.56.112.80 is persistently vandalising the Dera Sacha Sauda article. The IP address may need to be monitored. Jamie 13:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This way, please! --ElKevbo 14:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Block request...

I would like to request a block on IP - 148.168.40.4. It is a shared IP but is consistently making unneccessary edits and personal attacks. I apologize if this the wrong place for this. Thanks for any help. Strunke 14:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This would be the more appropriate place to report this. You'd probably get a quicker response, too. --ElKevbo 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much....Strunke 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

using Wikipedia as an advertising agency

I think there could be a problem with advertising on Wikipedia. I noticed that a user MikeGogulski is using his userpage as a vehicle for advertising. This account is only a few weeks old. On his first day he started developing his user page with an army of userboxes. [65]. These userboxes contain his various skills and services and his personal website. He explained his userpage as follows

"...if you click one of those userbox soldiers on my talk page, a single click more will bring you to a site where I maintain a paid account and profile containing a vast array if personal and commercial information about myself, including a copy of my CV." diff [66]

By the user's own admission his goal is to spread commercial information about himself, and gain free advertising by maintaining this account and userpage. The profile he wanted to advertise [67] and his personal webpage [68]. These contain statements like "I can accept payments in USD, EUR and SKK via bank transfer to US or Slovak banks, PayPal, Moneybookers and e-gold." and similar. While this may not be a major case, if this type of behaviour goes unchecked Wikipedia will be flooded with personal userpages advertising every type of service imaginable not just translation. I know that wikipedia has a tough stance against advertising by companies but I'm not sure about individuals offering services, so I'm bringing this to the attention of administrators requiring some type of action to be taken.

This type of commercial exploitation of wikipedia is despicable in my opinion, as wikipedia is not an advertising agency for anyone to gain higher rank on google search. It seems that he is not here to write an encylopedia but for other reasons. It seems he is pretty successful already in advertising his talents and services, already rank 4th on google with a few weeks old account. [69] Olivierdb 14:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• At a minimum, I think you should give MikeGogulski the courtesy of letting him know you're discussing his userpage here. That would give him the opportunity to respond. --ElKevbo 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Since Olivierdb did not notify MikeGogulski of this conversation, I did. --ElKevbo 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Considering the fact that I can't find evidence of these links to his pages, I'm a bit confused about what action should be taken. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The link is in the "this user has a website" userbox Olivierdb 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • (e/c) While the talk page diff might show some uncivility (I would need to read the whole conversation first, to see the context) I would hardly call a "This user has a website" userbox advertising. He seems to be a decent contributor, not what is usually seen by advertisers. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (After edit conflict) Indeed. Unless I've missed something, MikeGogulski has done nothing wrong. In fact, his user page is pretty toned-down and nondescript as far as these things go. There's nothing wrong with including links to one's own personal sites on one's user page. Mike has plenty of mainspace edits and it doesn't at all seem like his intent on Wikipedia is merely to promote himself. His "admission of commercial intent" that you linked looks like a defense against your accusation of sockpuppetry, not him announcing his plans to advertise himself on Wikipedia. You definitely should have raised your concerns with Mike before reporting this on the noticeboard, your accusations seem pretty groundless. -- mattb 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • My main concern is not his userboxes, but the fact he uses his whole account (all his contributions) to advertise his real name, to gain hits from google to his service(translation). If this pratice spreads who out of all Jack Smiths et cetera gets to have the name and the userpage as advertising space? I titled this thread the way I did because also wanted to ask about the general issue of advertising on userpages and account names if it is permissible. My post wasn't about this one user but the issue in general. Olivierdb 15:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, it's a pretty common practice (and it used to be the standard) to use your real name for your Wiki-Username (from Wikipedia:Username#Choosing_a_username: "The choice of username might be based on your real name or a familiar Internet nickname..."). Furthermore, all external links not within the "article" namespace are done with the nofollow tag (see [70]), so he won't actually gain much PageRank from that listing. I don't think there's a problem here. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Can you please specifically link to where this editor has explicitly said that "his goal is to spread commercial information about himself, and gain free advertising by maintaining this account and userpage." I am not seeing that it in the information you have provided. --ElKevbo 15:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• His user page seems unobjectionable to me. -- DS1953 ^talk 15:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• I think that at this point it is worth looking at the contributions of Olivierdb (talk · contribs) instead, in particular this edit. This noteboard section appears to be a bogus charge of advertising aimed at an editor who questioned whether Olivierdb was a single-purpose account created in order to disrupt discussion, by re-making controversial edits that were currently the subject of a lengthy talk page discussion (see Talk:Bratislava#Names). That this is the only editor in that discussion to have strayed from discussing the article onto the subject of other editors' names and user pages indicates that the sole purpose here is to disrupt, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. I suggest that we give our attentions to other matters. Uncle G 16:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Defendant responds Thank you, ElKevbo, for notifying me of the accusation. Obviously my own words on the subject will speak less loudly than my actions, but I will state unequivocally that my work on Wikipedia is based on a genuine desire to improve, expand, and add articles in areas of interest to me, and where I feel that I can make valuable contributions to the project. The notion that I suddenly appeared with an "army of userboxes", and that this should somehow be taken as evidence of my ill intent, befuddles me. I've used wiki software in several professional engagements in the past, and was a long-time user of Wikipedia prior to starting my contributions here. This included using wikicode I found implemented here on internal company projects. I based my own userbox population primarily on User:MarkBA's user page, and it was MarkBA's contributions which formed a big part of my inspiration to become a registered editor. I choose to edit under my real name for purposes of open and honest attribution. That this has a knock-on effect of potentially increasing my market exposure as a translator is an inevitable consequence, not dependent on me placing a (permitted, small) link to my website on my user page. In agreement with mattb's position above, my motivation to point out my website link as part of the sockpuppetry argument was to provide evidence that my Wikipedia identity is identical with my real identity, with the thought it mind that it would be pretty ridiculous for some pseudonymous user to create a sockpuppet in his real name. I'm treating this as controversy for the sake of controversy and nothing more. By the way, User:Olivierdb, thank you for telling us that you're Hungarian by means of the Google link you pasted above; we'll take that into account in considering any apparently anti-Slovak POV in your edits. To your response that "My post wasn't about this one user but the issue in general", well, LOL. It seems to me you're here to start (or perhaps continue) a war, and to do so by sounding reasonable. MikeGogulski 16:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Olivierdb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously a sockpuppet account and no newbie. He/she knows WP:ANI and his/her only edits have been disruptive reverts, not real contributions. As Mike pointed out above, the google links posted by Olivierdb suggest he/she is from Hungary. Olivierdb's POV is to change the names of Slovak cities into a non-Slovak version.[71] He/she abuses WP:ANI to accuse opponents in a POV dispute.[72] I might be wrong, but all three things also characterize the only known Hungarian sockpuppetmaster, banned VinceB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Olivierdb account was founded just three days after VinceB's last attempt to evade his ban using sockpuppets was stopped by administrators.[73] It may be all a coincidence and Olivierdb may be a sockpuppet of someone else. But even in that case, it seems to be a "bad hand" account, forbidden by WP:SOCK. Tankred 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I resent the gross incivility and personal attacks against me above also violating WP:AGF. I find the comment regarding my alleged ethnicity "take that into account in considering any apparently anti-Slovak POV" bizarre to say the least. The same can be said about the "here to start a war" part. MikeGogulski also solicited comment on the talk page of Bratislava [74] urging other editors to defend him, the result of this is Tankred's comment above who is an active editor of Bratislava. I also think the actual advertising taking place is undeniable, indeed he admits it again now a second time above "That this has a knock-on effect of potentially increasing my market exposure as a translator is an inevitable consequence". This time he calls the advertising effect inevitable. The fact that his very first action as a wikipedia editor ever was to construct those userboxes suggests otherwise. I think advertising is a serious issue on wikipedia and when not done by companies but individuals is not taken seriously enough. With that said I accept if the consensus is that nothing really happened here, but I ask others to refrain from off topic personal attacks against me, especially if those were solicited by MikeGogulski. Olivierdb 17:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In my time on WP I've noticed that it's always the sockpuppets who cry "AGF!" the loudest. Reviewing the activity and contributions of Olivierdb leaves little doubt that this is a sockpuppet account. Using a sock is bad enough, but using one to bring accusations here against a legitimate editor is especially reprehensible and should be dealt with accordingly. Doc Tropics 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Please, Olivierdb, we're not idiots. New accounts don't file ANI complaints two days after creation. You are transparently a sockpuppet. Georgewilliamherbert 19:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My word, some wicked rouge admin appears to have blocked him. Mwuhahahahahaha! Guy (Help!) 19:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing at Afro

User:71.112.142.5, who has vandalized the Afro page as User:71.112.7.212 and User: 71.112.6.35 is once again vandalizing. This user has been the subject of a RfC, has been blocked several times, and now is using multiple IPs. They engage in disruptive editing and WP:Game the rules so they just slightly dance inside the system. They are continually reverted. A review of their most egregious behavior is found at User:71.112.7.212, but now that they are slipping in and out of IPs, they try to only troll selectively. I'd like to ask for the above IPs to be blocked from Afro or, at the very least, have some admins take note of their behavior and engage them. --David Shankbone 15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The page has been temporarily protected. The IPs you cite are Verizon DSL addresses. If we block his address today, it is very likely that he can force Verizon to assign him a different IP tomorrow by simply unplugging his DSL modem for a few minutes. The best answer is often to simply revert and ignore, report the IP addresses at intervention against vandalism or ask for page protection at requests for page protection. Thatcher131 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalizing

At first sight, a few hours ago, this issue appeared to me like a report on a vandal and a request for blocking an IP. Nothing suspicious at all. It is just like an edit warring and we don't fix those kind of problems here. What i don't understand is why you're calling the IP/S vandals. They are doing the same thing you are doing. They do replace "your" pic by another everytime you do the same w/ User:Steve-o's which was uploaded very recently.

That said, i believe there is a conflict of interests in here. What i don't understand also is that you are saying that that user has been the subject of a RfC. Who is this user and when was that? I can think of 2 possibilities: User:Urthogie or User:Rbaish. The thing is that no one of those has been a subject of an RfC as far as i know and correct me if i am wrong. So who is the user you are referring to and how do you know s/he is the one?

To sort out this issue, why not use Image:LaurynHill.jpg? It is of a very good quality and encyclopedic because it reflects many things the article discusses. Can you explain please what is particlar about "your" picture Afro 2 by David Shankbone.jpg? Does the article talks about social activities like drinking related to Afro style? The article talks about the relationship between the style and some artistic activities except drinking. I strongly believe that the pic of that Afro style girl w/ a drink (some of it poured on her dress at the right side) and a napkin on the other was taken at the Tribeca Film Festival 2007. Am i wrong?

Please gently refrain from calling contributors vandals and trolls when they are not and discuss objectively the issue at nice photo! here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comtheo sockpuppets and John Moyer article recreations.

Hello. 2 days ago, there was an incident with a rather intrusive guy who replaced an article with his own multiple times. It was resolved for the moment, and is archived here. After that, the user created many sockpuppets and article about his hero with them, resulting in the users being blocked and the article being deleted and ultimately protected from re-creation. It went on and on, as administrators were able to delete the articles / block the users when they saw the article as candidate for speedy deletion. Today however, Comtheo is very fast. He removes the speedy template within a very short time period after they are set-up, so i decided to come here again. The current article is John Moyer: comedian by the current puppet ComtheoJR (talk · contribs). Some more info on recent articles and puppets is in the speedy deletion message, which i'll just re-post here:

A7 - Multiple re-creation from John Moyer (comedian), John E. Moyer, John Moyer (writer, comedian), John Moyer (stand up comic) and John Moyer (stand up comedian). (All of that only after vandalizing John Moyer many times over a 2 day period). Author of this article is one of many many sockpuppets of User:Comtheo (here are some of them: User:Comdytheorem, User:JzyDy, User:1277MM, User:ChrisPUT, User:ComedytheoremJR, User:comedytheorem, User:ComtheoJR) - Please delete & protect, and block puppet.

Is there a more permanent way of drawing him off, instead of just deleting the article and blocking the user, forcing him to just register a new account and creating a new article with a slightly different name? ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody's forcing him to keep re-creating his vanity article. In fact, by now, it seems that he is wilfully ignorant rather than just clueless. It cannot posisbly have escaped his notice that we do not want his vanity spam, but when was the last time a Mormon took no for an answer? Guy (Help!) 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Formerly banned, but reinstated by Jimbo, user User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is carrying on in a questionable manner, edit-warring on Cherokee (which has required protection of that article), making what borders on legal threats (based on totally preposterous legal theories of his to the effect that Indian tribes can override the First Amendment and ban discussion about them if it goes in directions of which they disapprove), engaging in WP:POINT behavior (creating a category "Massacres by Mormons" with only one article in it because he dislikes a similar category regarding massacres by American Indians), accusing users critical of him of being sockpuppets, and so on. *Dan T.* 17:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I left a note. He needs to take a chill pill or he's going to end up blocked again. However, Dan, please resist any temptation to bait him. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I interacted with this fellow a while back at Daniel Brandt. Neither of us had a great time, though in my opinion the exercise was largely memorable for this edit. I've not seen anything quite like it, either before or since. Moreschi ^Talk 18:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing this. Not all the trolls are from SCOX. I'll refrain from feeding any of them.  :-)Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Willful or clueless? I vote 2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Clueless. Someone placed a {{who}} and I thought it meant for someone to say who in the community said it, so I put it in. I assumed if it was wrong, someone would format, correct, or remove it. I'm glad everyone finds it so entertaining. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you're just not quite getting it, allow me to provide you some good, but unsolicited advice. You're not doing yourself any favors by threatening people, mentioning laws, or trying to muscle changes in past anyone. Anyone who spends 10 seconds trying to figure out if you're gonna be able to muscle changes past them is going to realize quite quickly that just a small, well placed, well written whine about you is going to send you back into indef blocked. You, not them, need to tread on eggshells. You're incredibly lucky that this particular whine isn't perfectly written. If the first commenter had stated "Merkey is back to his old gig - threatening wikipedians with lawsuits (diff), editing disruptively (diff), and sticking his nose where it don't belong (diff). Why did we unblock him, exactly? Were we short on POV pushers who like to threaten people?" then I suspect we'd be discussing this from the other side of your block log. I think you're just a tech guy who can't interact with people. You're going to have to learn if you want articles to read how you want them to read. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No one has been subjected to any threats other than me by a large group of troll accounts, most of whom are affiliated with the Linux movement. I am saddened that disagreement with views about Wikiality offends folks. Many of the arguments esspoused by Brandt and others appear to be true about this particular community on the English Wikipedia, despite my best efforts to assume good faith on folks part. Time for a break. I will go ahead and write enhanced filters to the Wikigadugi project to strip out Native Articles into a separate dump so I can review and remove the false information contained in them about these fake "Wikipedia Indians". I may return to correct or add syllabary constructs from time to time. The English Wikipedia is like a slow motion train wreck I feel compelled to watch, but helpless to stop or advise. I fear things should just go on the way they have until the next train wreck. It's just too stressful and time wasting to attempt to make progress here.  :-) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

JB196 sock

Resolved

Slazengerbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please block, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Non morir, Seneca...nope, too late. Whacked. Moreschi ^Talk 18:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Resolved

• User:Secfrance - sockpuppet of User:Secisalive! and User:France a.
• Those two accounts were both permablocked for sockpuppetry, personal attacks and vandalism.
• Secfrance confessed on my talkpage to being a joint sockpuppet - though he insists that France a was his brother, and Secfrance is a joint accout for both of them.
• See the discussion on user talk:Secisalive! for the "brother" thread. Could someone block him?--Rambutan (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. · AndonicO ^Talk 19:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

New Brasileiro1969 sock puppet, User:Rabbia62

Hi, I just logged in to find my userpage vandalised by this new account (Rabbia62). I think it's pretty clear that it is a sock puppet of the banned account Brasileiro1969, which is turn was found to be a sock puppet of Marlon.sahetapy (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Marlon.sahetapy) aLii 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Superman34241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Superman34241 seems to be flying under the radar here (for lack of a better figure of speech). All of his mainspace contribs are vandalism, but he has not received higher than a level 2 warning. He also has a threat (that he says is "a legal warning") on top of his talk page, warning others not to edit it. After LuigiManiac warned him for some vandlism, he replied with a uw-bv, and a very WP:OWN-ish message. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. —Centrx→talk • 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

user:Azerbaijani

I lost count how many times user:Azerbaijani attacked me and used inappropriate language for discussion(and not only with regard to me but other users). Here new one [75]. He tries to push his opinion as the only truth. Before he twice told that I lied [[76]] on the question which turned to be right from my perspective - I proved the fact by submitting relevant document. Wiki community should pay attention to such users like user:Azerbaijani. He is on the Arbcom parole, yet he was blocked once for violating its desicion and still behave in inappropriate manner.--Dacy69 18:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never personally attacked this user. This is another false revenge report, one in a line of them. Note that in none of the diffs this user has ever posted was there ever a personal attack. Wikipedia's policies say that I am allowed to comment on a Users edits but not on the user himself. I have never commented on Dacy personally. He tried to lie about what a source was saying, and I called him out on it and eventually he admitted it and we all moved on. I was the one that asked him to bring up a source proving his point, and finally, after distorting the first one he brought up, he was able to bring a legitimate source up.

This user is not familiar with Wikipedia's policies of NPOV, OR, or PA. I have asked him several times to familiarize himself with Wikipedia's rules. I have even went as far as copy pasting the rules for him on talk pages, and that hasnt even worked.

I know of countless diff's I can bring up of user Dacy breaking Wikipedia's policies, and making false accusations and false reports.

Note that this is not the first time he has made such a false report: [77] (he asked for a check user on me without any justification whatsoever but rather a week argument, which was baseless) [78] (Another similar report of incivility against me...)

Its hilarious how he tries to use Wikipedia's rules against me when he isnt even familiar with them. He cannot prove that I have ever attacked him personally of ever been uncivil towards him. This is part of his (and other friends of his on Wikipedia's) bullying and smear tactics.

Dacy69 is also on Arbcom parole, and so far he has broken parole twice but not blocked for it (due to false revenge posts and reports by his friends).

This user and his friends are trying hard, really hard, to bully me around with such tactics. Notice how in his description he says attacked me and used inappropriate language for discussion(and not only with regard to me but other users) however, look at the diff's, A) nowhere is there an attack, and B)no where is there inappropriate language. This is a POV revenge attack, simple as that. I even predicted this would happen, as it has become a usual thing for me to have to deal with these days.Azerbaijani 19:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there is global plot against him.--Dacy69 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a global one, but its pretty obvious whats going on, or is what you, Grandmaster, and Atabek doing just a coincidence (even though you guys work together on almost every article, make almost identical false accusations and reports, exchange reverts on articles, etc...). Also, this user thinks Wikipedia rules dont apply to him, and has made that clear several times, the lastest: [79] (He thinks Wikipedia undue-weight and NPOV dont apply to that article or him)Azerbaijani 19:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:70.146.137.154

He is harassing and threatening me about a totally non-wikipedia related matter, posting personal information, and not responding to requests to stop. Tmtoulouse 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support block for legal threats being made. Any oversights around? x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made the block, I'm not an oversight though. --Wafulz 19:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't think an oversight was needed for that. · AndonicO ^Talk 19:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fraudster

As a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norbert de Jonge this afd someone posted this here, clearly someopne impersionating me. What can be done about this kind of harrassment and intimidation? SqueakBox 19:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Grow a thicker skin, is about it. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• I wouldnt be editing these articles without one, SqueakBox 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ymous

Ymous (talk · contribs) is using Wikipedia for his own soap box, creating patently absurd articles and edit warring over them, then writing polemics about the liberal bias in Wikipedia on both his User page and his Talk page. Corvus cornix 20:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)